S Rodell 09858138 PDF

THE INFLUENCE OF ROBERT VENTURI ON LOUIS KAHN
By
Sam Rodell
A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

The requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ARCHITECTURE
WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

School of Architecture
May 2008
To the Faculty of Washington State University:

The members of the Committee appointed to examine the thesis of SAM RODELL find it
satisfactory and recommend that it be accepted.
_______________________________________
Chair
_______________________________________
_______________________________________
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am indebted to the individuals and institutions that supported and challenged me in the
research and production of this thesis, including:
Thesis Committee
Dr. David Wang
J. Phillip Gruen
Matthew Cohen
Kahn Contemporaries and Scholars
Dr. David Brownlee
A. J. Diamond
Nicholas Gianopulos
Denise Scott Brown
Anne Tyng
Robert Venturi
William Whitaker
Students of Kahn / Venturi
Vakil Kuner
John Lobell
Barry Moore
Dennis Sanders
Carl Strona
The Architectural Archives, University of Pennsylvania
The Interdisciplinary Design Institute, Washington State University
iii
THE INFLUENCE OF ROBERT VENTURI ON LOUIS KAHN

Abstract
By Sam Rodell M.S.
Washington State University
May 2008
This study considers the question of how Louis Kahns development as an architect was
shaped by the influences of Robert Venturi.
The personal and professional interaction between
these two historically significant architects began late in Kahns career and early in Venturis.
Starting with Venturis masters thesis in 1950, the relationship continued past the seminal
publication of Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture sixteen years later. Some historical accounts
portray Kahn as mentor to Venturi over this period of time. It was in fact a more dynamic exchange
through which both artists benefited, and the contributions of the youthful Venturi on the elder
Kahn may well have been pivotal for Kahn. As Kahns mature work began to emerge during the
later years of his career, crucial aspects of that now-distinct signature architecture may well be
traced to his intimate exposure to Venturis (then radical) emerging theories.
By means of archival research, chronological analyses of key artifacts, and interviews of
students and associates of Kahn and Venturi (including Scott Brown and Venturi, as well as other
primary sources), this paper will consider how Kahns adoption of the role of context in
architecture, his use of layered space, his interest in natural light, and above all his reconsideration of
the role of history were all arguably shaped by Venturis influence during a specific historical period.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ iii

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................................ iiv
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. v
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS ........................................................................................................... vi
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................ 1
THE LITERATURE .......................................................................................................................... 5
CONTEXT IN ARCHITECTURE ................................................................................................. 8
LEARNING FROM TEACHING AND PRACTICE ................................................................ 9
LAYERED SPACE .......................................................................................................................... 15
NATURAL LIGHT .......................................................................................................................... 18
KAHNS RECONSIDERATION OF HISTORY ..................................................................... 21
CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 26
APPENDIX
A.
INTERVIEW: DENISE SCOTT BROWN ................................................................ 27
B.
INTERVIEW: DR. DAVID BROWNLEE................................................................. 31
C.
INTERVIEW: DENISE SCOTT BROWN AND ROBERT VENTURI ............. 47
D.
INTERVIEW: NICHOLAS GIANOPULOS ............................................................. 75
E.
A WORMS EYE VIEW OF RECENT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY .............. 80
F.
THOUGHTS ABOUT EVOLVING TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ................ 83
G.
LOUIS KAHN REMEMBERED................................................................................... 85
H.
SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................ 91
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE 1:
KAHN/VENTURI COMPARATIVE TIMELINE........................................................ 4

Authors Diagram
FIGURE 2:
SHAW TOWNHOUSE WINDOW DETAIL ............................................................... 11

Photograph by author
FIGURE 3:
MOTHERS HOUSE WINDOW DETAIL..................................................................... 11

Photograph by author: University of Pennsylvania Architectural Archives
FIGURE 4:
MOTHERS HOUSE STUDY MODEL .......................................................................... 11

FIGURE 5:
KORAM RESIDENCE ....................................................................................................... 11

FIGURE 6:
PHILLIPS EXETER DINING HALL, ELEVATION DRAWING......................... 12

FIGURE 7:
VANNA VENTURI HOUSE, ELEVATION DRAWING ........................................ 12

FIGURE 8:
VANNA VENTURI HOUSE ............................................................................................ 13

FIGURE 9:
ESHERICK HOUSE ........................................................................................................... 13

FIGURE 10:
NORTH PENN VISITING NURSES HEADQUARTERS ....................................... 14

FIGURE 11:
NORTH PENN VISITING NURSES HEADQUARTERS ....................................... 14

vi
FIGURE 12:
SALK INSTITUTE STUDY TOWER ............................................................................. 14

FIGURE 13:
SALK INSTITUTE STUDY TOWER ............................................................................. 14

FIGURE 14:
FLOOR PLAN, PEARSON HOUSE............................................................................... 15

FIGURE 15:
NORTH CANTON REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, YMCA ........................................ 17

FIGURE 16:
NORTH CANTON REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, CITY HALL ............................. 17

FIGURE 17:
SALK INSTITUTE MEETING HOUSE ....................................................................... 17

Larson, Kent. Unbuilt Masterworks: Louis I. Kahn Monacelli, 2000 p. 64
FIGURE 18:
SALK INSTITUTE MEETING HOUSE ....................................................................... 17

Larson, Kent. Unbuilt Masterworks: Louis I. Kahn Monacelli, 2000 p. 75
FIGURE 19:
LECTURE OUTLINE, LIGHTING ............................................................................... 19

Photograph by author: University of Pennsylvania Architectural Archives File 6607
FIGURE 20:
CROSS SECTION, PEARSON HOUSE ........................................................................ 20

FIGURE 21:
LONGITUDAL SECTION, PEARSON HOUSE ........................................................ 20

vii
INTRODUCTION
Venturi and Kahns close relationship occurred well before their respective historical
significances emerged - late in Kahns career, early in Venturis. For both, this was a crucial period:
For Venturi, it spanned from his Princeton graduate studies to his first built works and the
completion of Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture; for Kahn, it heralds the formation of his
mature architectural vocabulary, which I suggest reflects the influence of Venturi in critical ways.
During this time architecture was dominated by the then-profound influence of
International School ideals that valorized supposedly original expressions of modern technology and
deemed the role of history in architecture irrelevant. Kahn had been trained in historically founded
Beaux-arts values and methodologies in school, but followed mainstream architectural cultures
wholesale rejection of historical architecture. In the early 1950s his practice reflected influences of
Anne Tyng, with whom he was involved personally and professionally in the late 1940s and early
1950s. He had no evident interest in context, layered space, the relevance of history, or complexity
and contradiction in form, all theoretical topics preoccupying Venturi at that time. Venturi was then
a lone voice advocating the relevance of such issues to architecture, in radical opposition to the
prevailing views amongst his professional brethren.
In 1964, Venturis realization that his own
ideas were being presented verbatim in a public lecture by Kahn - as Kahns own - abruptly quelled
their personal and collaborative relationship. 1
From this point forward, as Venturis career
developed and the distance between him and Kahn would grow to be so vast as to represent
virtually polar opposite approaches to and interpretations of architecture, there would be no
communication between them.
1 According to Venturi, Kahn presented Venturis concept of walls parting to become columns at a lecture at the
Philadelphia Arts Alliance. Scott Brown and Venturi vividly described Venturis reaction in Rittenhouse Square, after
the lecture. (Scott Brown interview, February 16, 2007. Venturi and Scott Brown interview, May 3, 2007.)
Venturis experience seems consistent with a well documented pattern of unacknowledged

assimilation of many creative contributions of highly talented individuals that Kahn surrounded
himself with, particularly later in his career as he began to draw such talent toward him in the forms
of students, colleagues, consultants, and clients.
Eccentric Lone Genius.
Kahn cultivated an identity as the archetypical
This was hardly unusual for the time, and in fact this posture is
stereotypically characteristic of many of his contemporaries as well as of those who were mentors to
Kahns generation of architects; the celebrity and self-promotion of virtually all such figures as Frank
Lloyd Wright or Le Corbusier was deeply embedded in the sub-culture of the architectural
profession (and to a lesser but still significant extent, clearly persists today).
But though Kahn was a gifted architect, his was not the genius of the loner so much as that
of the collaborator, and at least part of his genius was the ability to identify it in others and tap
into those reservoirs of talent.
Indeed, the ability to generate a larger vision and orchestrate a team
of qualified specialists toward the refinement, realization, and production of that vision is a
fundamental requisite vital to any practicing architect (or firm), let alone an architect with the
aspirations of Kahn.
Assembling a great team and leading it to great things is the task of any
architect (or client) who aspires to create great architecture.
To look at but one project, the
Kimbell Art Museum was the collective product of an exceptional group of individuals, each of
whom played an essential role: The client, Richard Brown; Marshal Meyer, who might be thought of
as Kahns project architect 2 ; August Komendant, the structural engineer; Richard Kelly and Edison
Price, lighting consultants; Thomas Byrne, the general contractor the Kimbell would not exist
without the vital (and well documented) contributions of any one of them.
The key role of Meyer in the design of the Kimbell Art Museum is discussed at length in Leslies Louis I. Kahn: Building
Art, Building Science and Louds The Art Museums of Louis I. Kahn. Meyer was responsible for far more than the detailing
of the building. Even the use of the cycloid vault form is documented as having come from Meyer, as a direct result of
his research into shell structures.
Recognition of the contributions of Kahns team, or those that contributed to his artistic
development, does not diminish his architecture, even though it may undermine his lone genius
identity. The overarching question of Kahns development as an artist is more fundamental than
embedded issues of ego or self promotion, however, because his career as an architect might best be
understood as being composed of distinct periods characterized by the systemic influence of specific
key associations that appear to have been critical to his development as an artist.
This paper will present evidence that prior to his disillusionment with Kahn, Venturi helped
Kahn move past International School dogma to reconsider key topics that subsequently preoccupied
him for the remainder of his career as critically pivotal components of his artistic development and,
ultimately, his highly distinctive architecture.
Fig. 1 Kahn/Venturi Comparative Timeline.
In the mid 1950s, Kahn and Venturi developed a
strong professional relationship. After 1964, though Kahn was estranged from both Anne Tyng and
Robert Venturi; his mature architecture might be said to reflect a blending of both their
influences. This paper will examine the interaction between Venturi and Kahn from 1950 to 1964.
4
THE LITERATURE
Few historians acknowledge the influence of Venturi in Kahns artistic development. I have
found but three significant exceptions: David Brownlee and David De Long, Vincent Scully, and
Eugene Johnson. 3
Brownlee and De Long, who authored academically rigorous books on both architects,
observe:
Kahns letters of recommendation for Venturi document close ties and deep
appreciation, and it was surely Venturis perceptive comprehension of personal
mannerisms and specificity in architecture that came to loosen Kahns growing
inclination toward highly controlled, even compulsively ordered designs. Within the
very shadow of the pure logic cast by the City Tower project, Venturi, in his sketch
of the plaza, invoked the emotionally charged spirit of Michelangelos Campidoglio.
If Anne Tyng can be said to have strengthened Kahns tendencies toward abstract
geometric order, then surely Venturi provided the means by which that order could
be made poetic. 4
And Scully, who shared close personal and professional relationships with both Kahn and
Venturi, has written:
(Venturi) had never been subjected to modernisms most intolerant and
limiting school to which Kahn, at least in his professional life during the 1930s
and 1940s, had most destructively been exposed.
So Kahn himself was eventually
liberated by Venturi to recall his own past, no less than that of humanity as a whole,
3 Carter Wiseman mentions a claim Venturi makes regarding the Exeter Dining Hall being influenced by the Vanna
Venturi house. His book on Kahn is otherwise notably silent with respect to Venturi.
4 Brownlee, David B., & De Long, David G.; Louis I. Kahn: In the Realm of Architecture, Universe Publishing, 1997 P. 72
and to build upon it. Those elements of design, mostly Roman, which are early in
Venturi and late in Kahn, attest to that. 5
Johnson, thoughtfully considering Kahns artistic development in Drawn From the Source: The
Travel Sketches of Louis I. Kahn, offers a more complex interpretation of the question of Venturis role
in Kahns development. Johnson shows evidence that Venturi did not introduce Kahn to historical
architecture, but admits that he may have encouraged Kahn to look at that history and indeed his
own memories of European travel anew thirty years later.
Denise Scott Brown has argued that Kahns contacts with Robert Venturi in the
1950s led to Kahns interest in layering: Through Bob, he investigated the layering of
enclosed spaces and the layered juxtapositions of walls and openings, and he discovered that windows
could be holes in the wall again. The evidence of the Italian drawings of 1928-29
demonstrates that Kahn had investigated these issues much earlier. As for his
realizing that windows could be holes in the wall again, to use Scott Browns words,
his drawings of interiors from Stockholm and Ravello and of the Bargello in
Florence demonstrate this concept forcefully. 6
In endnotes, Johnson allows (after offering that Scott Brown could not have known the evidence
contained in the travel drawings) that her claim that Venturi introduced Kahn to ideas derived
from mannerist architecture is buttressed by the lack of evidence of an interest in such architecture
in Kahns travel drawings, even those from 1950-51. 7
Johnson is referring to Scott Browns A worms eye view of recent architectural history, in which she
recalls, in part:
5 Scully, Vincent, Modern Architecture and Other Essays, Princeton University Press, 2003, p. 338 Scully also evaluates
considerable evidence of Venturi developing architectural ideas prior to Kahn adopting them in the essay Everybody Needs
Everything, published in Mothers House: The Evolution of Vanna Venturis House in Chestnut Hill, which I cite below.
6 Johnson, Eugene, Drawn From the Source: The Travel Sketches of Louis I. Kahn, MIT Press, 1996, p. 64
7 Ibid. p. 128
When I arrived at Penn in 1958, Kahn was reassessing architectural history under
the tutelage of a young architect, Robert Venturi. The influence, despite how history
has been written, went mainly from the younger to the older. 8
This concise essay is one of the few written statements on the topic by Scott Brown or Venturi. It
was prominently published in a mainstream professional monthly magazine Architectural Record,
but with the exception of Johnson, it seems to have been passively disregarded by architectural
historians. 9
Venturi has written even more sparingly of his relationship with Kahn:
some of the characteristics of Kahn represent influences of Denise Scott
Brown and myself rather than on Denise Scott Brown and myself exemplifying a
not uncommon case of the son informing the father. I shall note here that Kahn
learned from me concerning the elements of layering, holes in walls, and breaking
the order described above; his use of inflection in the case of the pavilions in the
Salk Center complex derives also from my critique. 10
Also, accepting the Pritzker Prize, Venturi included Kahn among those he wanted to thank:
Louis Kahn, profound teacher of mine, and ultimately, in some ways, as all teachers
become, a student of mine 11
These few citations represent the substantial exceptions to the far larger, more prominent,
and in most cases more accessible existing body of literature on Kahn or Venturi, which generally
ignores or discounts the question of Venturis potential influence on Kahn. 12
8 Venturi, Robert, & Scott Brown, Denise; Architecture as Signs and Systems, Harvard University Press, 2004, p. 117
9 Historians may be cautiously shying away from her claims because of her subjective point of view, or because so
many of the dynamics between Kahn and Venturi occurred prior to her arrival at Penn. (The judgment calls and other
dynamics involved are apparent in Brownlees interview in the appendix.)
10 Venturi, Robert. Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic Architecture. MIT Press, 1996
11 Ibid. p. 100
CONTEXT IN ARCHITECTURE
The first documented articulation of the notion of context in architectural design appears
to be with Venturis M.F.A. thesis at Princeton in 1950: Context in Architectural Composition. 13
Venturi had asked Kahn to sit on his thesis jury, and this was very probably his initial exposure to
Venturis willingness to challenge the constraints of then-mainstream ideals of the International
School.
The restoration of contextual considerations in architecture after 1950 is a sweeping historic
development, far broader than could be attributed to any one influence, but Venturi first advocated
its potential relevance to architecture.
Asked if the topic of context came to be broadly accepted
when he was teaching at Penn, Venturi told me I think people eventually got hold of it, both at
Penn and at Yale. Lou Kahn, to the degree that he dealt with context, he learned from me. 14
Although Kahns interest in context was far more limited than Venturis, his work began in
the 1950s to feature a subtle resistance to modernist notions of generic universality by means of an
engagement with situationally derived motivations behind fundamental design decisions.
Though his architecture may be characterized as seeking timeless Platonic qualities, Kahns work
increasingly displayed sensitivities to the selection and detailing of materials.
The Richards Medical Research Building was the first major building on a college campus
to be clad in red brick in over twenty years. 15 Kahns final works in Pakistan and India, composed
of architectural palettes reflecting the context of indigenous economic, technological, and cultural
conditions stand in stark contrast, for example, to the extravagant use of regionally foreign materials
and technologies evident at his modernist mentor Le Corbusiers earlier project at Chandigarh.
12 An annotated bibliography of selected writings on the topic is included in Appendix G.
13 Reproduced in Venturis Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic Architecture, p. 333
14 Interview with Venturi and Scott Brown, April 3, 2007
15 Op. cit. Lobell, John, A Lucid Mystic Helped Transform Our Architecture
http://johnlobel.com/publications/smithsnkhn.htm
LEARNING FROM TEACHING AND PRACTICE

Teaching was always important to Kahn, and it was critically important to Venturi during
these years. Of all the members of the faculty at Penn or Yale, no one directly challenged the
premises of International School modernism as unreservedly, aggressively, or persistently as Venturi.
Then relatively unknown, unpublished, and unbuilt, he was a lone young academic advancing ways
of seeing and thinking about design that, though they may now seem obvious or mainstream, were
then anything but.
The credibility he wields today makes it hard to appreciate how provocative,
quixotic, or perceptive his assaults on Modernism were.

At the University of Pennsylvania Architectural Archives, there is a list of students in
Venturis theory class (that he eventually compiled into Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture), 16
and those I was able to contact vividly described an energetic, charged environment at Penn 17 .
Venturi held the rapt attention of Penn students; from their perspective, his presence, both in the
design labs and his theory classes, clearly loomed. Those students would inevitably have served to
cross-pollinate Kahns studio with insights from Venturis historically oriented perspective. It is well
documented that Kahn knew and appreciated Venturi as a student, as an employee, as a colleague,
16 Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture. Museum of Modern Art, 1966.
17 Examples of student recollections:
It was a very confusing time; everything we had thought was sacred was being questioned; and our professors
had all kinds of different ideas that did not agree with one another.
Venturis theory class was after lunch, in a dark room, delivered with hundreds of slides and a relentlessly
monotonous, droning voice. But the room was full of Kahns masters studio students they were there
because the word was out that this was a mind-blowing class.
Venturis theory class was limited to forty people, but there were always over a hundred people crammed into
that space. After a while, it seemed like almost everyone at Penn was showing up.
Listen: It was a tiny place, very intimate; everyone was fully aware of what everyone else was doing.
Design lab crits would start at 1:00 in the afternoon and run well past 1:00 in the morning; people would drift
in from all over the school. Various members of the faculty would sit in on one anothers sections, and the
discussions made your head spin.
Something was happening every day and every night related to design. It was a total immersion in design.
Venturi was, hands down, the most sought-after teacher. Everyone wanted him for studio. He took so much
time with every student; he would work very sincerely a courteous but critical passion always in play with
each of us to coax out work we had no idea we were capable of. He challenged us - he really made us think
about things. He had a real impact on us.
and ultimately as a confidant and critic. To this list, I submit that Kahn was very likely to have also
benefited academically from his relative proximity to Venturi in the classroom. Although Venturis
academic voice would eventually reach around the globe with the publication of Complexity and
Contradiction in Architecture, Kahn was clearly within its range much earlier.
The application of academic and theoretical ideas in the practices of both architects reveals
numerous examples of each architect influencing the others built work. While the exchange clearly
flowed in both directions, the majority of instances involve Venturis ideas being executed in Kahns
work.
During the early years of Venturi and Kahns active relationship, Venturi had limited
opportunities to apply his ideas in practice. Kahn, on the other hand, was attracting large, exotic
institutional projects, and they actually reveal the first built applications of Venturis theories and
ideas that Kahn carried forward as essential components of his own architectural palette.
This ongoing exchange of influence is apparent in numerous comparative examples of their
work during these years. Venturi is quite forthcoming about how and when he was influenced by
Kahn.
Venturi credits Kahn with inspiring him to first use a double hung window in the final
version of the Vanna Venturi residence, or Mothers House. (Fig. 2) 18 The double hung window
would later become a signature element in Venturis work, but it began with a small remodel Kahn
did in downtown Philadelphia, the Shaw Townhouse project (Fig. 3). Venturi told me:
I have not seen them for years no one ever writes about them, they have never really
been acknowledged as being important, but they use these double hung windows those
windows made me think, why not? Why is the window not relevant for architecture; why
should that be thrown out? Thats when I did it in my mothers house. 19
18 This double hung window is actually a sliding glass door with two horizontal mullion elements added.
19 Interview with Venturi and Scott Brown, May 3, 2007
10
Figure 2: Shaw Townhouse

Louis Kahn, 1956-57
Figure 3. Vanna Venturi House

Robert Venturi, 1959-64
The first few versions of the house he designed for his mother (Fig. 4), over a period of five
years, reflect the influence of Kahn.
Venturi has said The house started out more like Kahn.
After all, I was young, and he was influential. 20 Venturi also recalls his use of diagonal elements in
early plans were influenced by Kahn, and that The idea of the servant space was a beautiful idea
that influenced me much. The influence went both ways. 21
Figure 4: Mothers House Study Model

Robert Venturi, 1959
Figure 5: Korman House

Louis Kahn, 1971-73
20 Schwartz, Frederick. Mothers House The Evolution of Vanna Venturis House in Chestnut Hill, Rizzoli 1992 p.24
11
Evidence of Venturis probable influence on Kahn is indeed apparent in numerous

examples.
Venturis projects frequently featured dramatically manipulated iconic architectural
elements such as over-scaled chimneys.
They dominated architectural compositions, and were
often seen either free standing or incorporated as a compositional architectural anchor.
Kahns
use of strong vertical massing occurs later both in his residential and institutional architecture. 22
Figure 6: Phillips Exeter Dining Hall, Louis Kahn (1965-71)
Figure 7: Vanna Venturi House, Robert Venturi (1959-64)

In Louis I. Kahn: Beyond Time and Style, Carter Wiseman quotes Venturi talking about Exeter
Dining Hall project (Fig. 6) specifically, as well as the borrowing of chimney elements:
22 Some historians speculate Richards Medical Research building towers were been inspired by Kahns visit to the
Tuscan hill town of San Gigimano, although I find no evidence that Kahn ever suggested that to be the case.
12
The dining hall was distinguished by dramatic, overscaled gables, and chimneys that broke
free of the buildings walls. Both bear strong resemblances to elements of Robert Venturis
1959 Beach House, and the house he designed for his mother.
In a conversation with a
former employee, he said, Theres no question it is Mothers-House-influenced, and the

chimney separate from the wall he got from me, too. 23
Figure 8: Vanna Venturi House
Figure 9: Esherick House
Robert Venturi (1959-64)
Louis Kahn (1959-63)
Distinctive chimney elements are also a dominant element in Kahns Esherick House (Fig. 9)
and Venturis Mothers House (Fig. 7,8).
another, and were developed concurrently.
These houses are but a few hundred yards from one

Visiting them, one cannot help but be struck by the
similarities of the sculptural chimney compositions playing central roles as daylighting devices.
Venturi told me the window/chimney in the Esherick house was actually his idea. 24
Venturis first built work, an office building for the North Penn Visiting Nurse Association
(Fig. 10, 11), shows ideas he developed throughout his career, including the inflection of the
building to respond to specific site circumstances was one such idea. Similarities between Venturis
modest project and Kahns Salk Institute (Fig. 12, 13) are readily apparent, supporting Venturis
specific claim that he influenced Kahns forms in this project as well.
23 Wiseman, Carter. Louis I. Kahn: Beyond Time and Style W. W. Norton & Co. 2007 p. 202
13
Fig. 10
North Penn Visiting Nurse Association
Venturi & Short, 1960
Parking lot and entrance
Fig. 11
North Penn Visiting Nurse Association
Venturi & Short, 1960
Street elevation
Figures 10, 11: Entry and reception inflected towards the parking lot.
Fig. 12
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Louis Kahn, 1960-65
Study tower
Fig. 13
Salk Institute for Biological Studies
Louis Kahn, 1960-65
Courtyard
Figures 12, 13: Lab and study towers inflected towards the sea.
14
LAYERED SPACE
The idea of architectural elements behind or inside others now commonly referred to as
layering in architecture is not something Venturi invented so much as derived from historical
precedent and his exposure to the work of Armando Brasini in Italy. 25 Venturi recalls that at that
time, the idea of layering was considered taboo, considered redundant' as by modernists.
Much of
Venturis early work displays his early interest in this concept, including the first (unbuilt) project of
his practice, the Pearson House.
Figure 14. Plan, Pearson House

This project showcases many architectural ideas in addition to spatial layering (massive
chimney elements, designing in section to introduce indirect light, architectural elements not
structurally authentic or necessary) Venturi would explore throughout his career that would also later
appear in Kahns mature architecture.
Scully, tracing the development of Venturis Mothers House through the progression of
drawings revealed in Schwartzs Mothers House, observes:
25 Op. Cit. Scully, Vincent. Everybody Needs Everything, in Mothers House: The Evolution of the Vanna Venturis House in
Chestnut Hill, Edited by Frederick Schwartz, Rizzoli 1992 p. 46
15
Even what we have come to think of as Kahns ruins wrapped around buildings, which
first appear in his work in the first design for the U.S. Consulate in Luanda, Angola, of 195962, are there in the section to set up a deep spatial layering for the main facades. But again
there is a critical question of date here. Kahns ruins dont stand free of his enclosing walls
until his project for the Salk Community Center of 1961-62; Venturis drawings of this first
Vanna Venturi project are earlier than that, so that Venturis layering would seem to be
entirely his own, not derivative from Kahns. It clearly pre-dates Kahns in any event.
Venturi himself traces it back to his earliest projects and ascribes it, again, to Rome
Moreover, Sterns Perspecta 9/10 (pp.50-51) also published a project for a House at
Chestnut Hill (also known as the Pearson House) by Venturi, dated 1957, where the
layering of ruins far out in space was already conspicuously present. 26
Scullys assertion that the idea of layering reflects Venturis influence is echoed by Brownlee:
Kahn would adopt this idea over the next few years as his own, using it in the double-skinned
designs for warm climates that, he said, looked as though they were made by wrapping ruins
around buildings. 27
Discussing Venturis North Canton, Ohio, redevelopment plan, (Fig. 15, 16)
Brownlee goes further, drawing a direct line from the Pearson House to specific Kahn works:
The perforated screen walls were, of course, descended from Venturis own Pearson house,
but this form had been given monumental status in Kahns recent designs for the conference
center of the Salk Institute , Indian Institute of Management, and the East Pakistan capital
complex. 28
26 Scully, Vincent, Everybody Needs Everything, published in Schwartz, Frederick, Mothers House The Evolution of Vanna
Venturis House in Chestnut Hill, Rizzoli 1992 p.39
27 Brownlee, David, and Delong, David. Out of the Ordinary Robert Venturi Denise Scott Brown and Associates
Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2001 p. 14
28 Ibid. p. 34
16
Fig. 15
North Canton, Ohio Redevelopment Plan
YMCA facade
Fig. 16
North Canton, Ohio, Redevelopment Plan
City Hall facade
The North Canton, Ohio Redevelopment project (Fig. 15, 16) shows Venturis development of the
idea of layering a direct progression of the concept first seen at the Pearson House, and clearly
emulated by Kahn in his concurrent work in San Diego for the Salk Institute (Fig. 17,18).
Fig. 17
Salk Institute Meeting House
Louis Kahn, 1965-66
Computer model rendering
Fig. 18
Salk Institute Meeting House
Louis Kahn, 1965-66
Computer model rendering
17
NATURAL LIGHT
The topics of architectural treatment of natural light and layering are closely related. Scully,
tracing the development of Venturis Mothers House through the progression of drawings revealed
in Schwartzs Mothers House observes:
up above the design bursts into a welter of roof shapes expressive of elaborate schemes
for encapsulating discrete interior spaces and lighting them from above. They seem typical
of Kahn at his most obsessed. Yet when we look at the date we must pause because the
urge to light spaces from above, indeed to design in section, comes to Kahn only later and is
most beautifully developed in his later museums. Venturi himself believes that the sectional
preoccupation and the overhead lighting are his own and derive from his personal
experience of the oculi and thermal windows of Rome. 29
In Louis I. Kahn Light and Space, Urs Bttiker notes In the late work of Louis I. Kahn, it
becomes apparent that skylight plays an increasingly important role, and that Kahn develops ever
more sophisticated solutions for light control and modulation. 30 Most scholars take up the topic
of Kahns preoccupation with natural light, but not the question of what might have inspired the
dramatic increase in Kahns interest in it late in his career.
Venturi was focusing on the potential and the problems of natural lighting earlier than the
topic surfaced as being of interest to Kahn, not only in Venturis architecture, as Scully notes, but
also in his theoretical work and teaching at the time.
The lecture outline below shows Venturi
presenting a theoretical treatment of lighting in distinctive terms terms that Kahn featured
prominently in the signature lexicon that subsequently dominated many of his lectures, essays,
panel discussions, and statements to the press in which he spoke at length about the nature and uses
of natural light in architecture.
29 Scully, Vincent, Everybody Needs Everything, published in Schwartz, Frederick, Mothers House, Rizzoli 1992 p.39
30 Bttiker, Urs. Louis I. Kahn Light and Space Whitney Library of Design, 1994 p.28
18
Fig. 19: Lecture outline. Robert Venturi, 1965

This entire lecture format shows Venturi considering natural light in architecture well outside
of the limitations of International School Modernists.
Venturi recalls the relatively simplistic
attitude toward natural light that prevailed in architecture at the time:

Modernism had thrown out the window. You either had an absence of a wall
meaning the whole wall was glass or you had no window, meaning the whole wall
was solid. 31
Venturis then-radical interest in designing in section to work with indirect light, as well as layered or
baffled architectural elements that diffused natural light are all apparent in these lecture notes.
31
Interview with Venturi and Scott Brown, April 3, 2007
19
Fig. 20
Cross section, Pearson Residence
Fig. 21
Longitudal section, Pearson Residence
The Pearson House (Fig. 14, 20, 21) shows Venturi designing in section as well as plan, with
the sectional studies proposing the extensive use of architectural elements designed to admit indirect
daylight into interior spaces.
After 1957, a similar preoccupation with designing in section and
working with baffled light increasingly appeared as a signature element of Kahns work (tentatively
at the U. S. Consulate in Luanda, and definitively after the First Unitarian Church in Rochester).
20
KAHNS RECONSIDERATION OF HISTORY

Historians are in broad agreement that Kahns education delivered a solid background in
architectural history that was not reflected in his work until the mid-1950s, when a sudden shift in
his interest toward it accompanied his rise to prominence. Most attribute Kahns dramatic change
to an epiphany on a 1950 visit to Italy and Egypt, but Kahns travel that year would hardly seem
sufficient to explain why he began to reconsider the architectural role of history to the extent that it
redefined him artistically a few years later. Kahn, with his classical Beaux-Arts college education,
was no stranger to historical architecture.
Tyng recalls Kahns historical knowledge as strong; he
helped her study for history portions of her architectural licensing exam. 32
Nor was Europe
unfamiliar to him; he covered much of the same territory thirty years earlier.
Those historians who offer Kahns 1950 trip to Europe as an explanation of Kahns abrupt
move away from International School constraints all overlook the presence of Venturi, who was
actively encouraging Kahn to seriously reconsider the role of history at that specific time. Venturi
had been profoundly affected by his first trip to Rome as an architecture student as well as a
subsequent fellowship to the American Academy in Rome where he spent two years before
returning to Philadelphia and employment in Kahns office.
Archived correspondence shows Venturi sharing enthusiasm for Rome with Kahn. In 1951
Venturi writes to Kahn I was surprised to find in my mail a copy to that February 50 Review on
Rome from a book dealer, which I had been seeking at book stores for some months but had given
up hope on. Therefore I can let you keep this one which I am sending under separate cover 33
and Eero (Saarinen) has returned with some wonderful color slides of Italian piazzas, especially that
32 Interview with Tyng, April 2007

33 Letter dated September 11, 1951 University of Pennsylvania Architectural Archives
21
of San Marco, and four copies of engravings of maps of Rome of different periods which give you
palpatation (sic) of the heart. 34
Tyng recalls Kahns interest in Venturis experiences in Rome: Bob had history. I came
from Harvard they had eliminated history from the curriculum. I had no background in the
things he was talking about with Lou. 35
Kahns high regard for Venturi and his knowledge of
architectural history is apparent in a letter to Tyng in July of 1954:

Bob (V.) is a very good architect. He looks for the right things and is very well
backgrounded historically which helps his judgment. I believe is going to be one
of our best if and when he gets the work. 36
Venturi maintained an ongoing, active relationship with Kahn after his return from the
American Academy in Rome.
He worked in Kahns office for a brief period of time, just before
opening his own practice in 1957, and maintained an active collegial relationship with Kahn for the
following eight years, often visiting Kahns office and participating in design critiques and
discussions related to both practices.
Nicholas Gianopulos, a Philadelphia structural engineer who worked directly with Kahn
from 1953 onward and Venturi from the first days of his practice, remembers an exchange in which
34 Letter dated November 28, 1951 University of Pennsylvania Architectural Archives

35 Interview with Tyng, April 2007
36 Tyng, Anne Griswold. Louis Kahn to Anne Tyng The Rome Letters 1953-1954 Rizzoli, 1997 p. 163
Archives include numerous correspondences that reveal Kahns esteem for Venturi. In May of 1963 he wrote to
the National Council of Architectural Registration Boards Venturi is one of the most gifted men in the art of
architecture. He deeply understands the inter-relations of the philosophical, spiritual and practical side of our
profession To an architectural selection committee in November of 1963, he wrote Venturi is, in my
opinion, one of the most outstanding architects in the profession. He is a thorough practitioner and a profound
student of architecture... (University of Pennsylvania Architectural Archives. Louis I. Kahn Collection, file
030.11.A.59.7)
22
Kahn expressed his admiration of Venturi and Venturis knowledge of architecture and architectural
history:
We were associated with August Komendant on the Olivetti projectat one point,
Komendant posed to Lou the question What do you think of Romaldo Giurgola?
Lou said nice things he was a very competent designer, etc.
Komendant then
asked, What do you think of Venturi? Kahn paused, and said Venturi is an
architect. He is an architect, through and through. He knows architecture; knows
what it was, knows what it is, knows what it will be.
Gianopulos vividly recalls Venturi challenging Kahn to fundamentally reconsider a Tynginfluenced architectural parti:
One Sunday afternoon, we were all talking about a synagogue in West Oak Lane
some rotated-tetrahedron type of thing.
Bob and Bob never, never was off-
putting or rude in any way said to Lou, quite earnestly: Lou, I think there are
other ways of expressing what you want to express here. It stopped Lou, gave him
pause. 37
Gianopulos readily recalls various examples and indications of Venturi influencing Kahn,
often in fundamental ways:
Historians are skewing the relationship between Kahn and Venturi casting Bob
as a protg of Lou, and I never saw it that way, not ever. Bob did have a strong
influence on Lou, and on his work... It was clear to me that up until (Venturi), Lou
was so strongly under the influence of Tyng. Once Bob came into the picture, Lou
started to drift away from Tyng, and his career took that critical turn.
37
Interviews with Gianopulos, October 2007 and January 2008
23
These are subtle things, but I think they came from his relationship with Bob
Lou very quickly changed from the International School. At Bryn Mawr above
the fireplace is a Jack arch a flat beveled arch. Above that, there is a segmental
circular arch.
It is a redundancy; a play on structural elements similar to
something Furness did at a much larger scale as though Kahn turned a magnifying
glass around and borrowed the whole thing at a reduced scale.
I think Bobs
philosophy that you can use (historical) elements that that seem logical and pleasing
to you without being accused of plagiarizing was nothing like the way Lou had
been working. In Dacca he did something I dont think he would have ever done
before the first time we saw him use columns in conjunction with bearing walls
he had always either used either all walls or all columns.
I think this relative
freedom of thought was a result of his working with Bob, because Bob was always
emphasizing how in the work we admire of the past, there was nothing pure. 38
It is hard to imagine a better primary research resource than a design professional who
worked intimately with both Kahn and Venturi, though a close second might be Venturi himself:
Rodell: I have a broad question here do you think you, personally, directly
reignited Kahns interest in history?
Venturi: Yes. Yes I do definitely think so. I have written about that.
Rodell: Earlier, I was saying well, the two of you come back from Rome, and
major things start to happen... I have to wonder if you helped Kahn see another
Rome Rome through a different set of lenses.
Venturi: Yes, yes. I do think so. 39
38 Ibid.
39 Interview with Venturi, May 2007
24
CONCLUSION: COMPLEXITY AND CONTRADICTION IN RELATIONSHIPS

Venturis greatest architectural mentor is Michelangelo. Venturi admires him for his work,
but Michelangelos contribution was also the liberating influence of that work on the artists of his
time and the generations of artists that followed him.
It seems appropriate that, much like
Michelangelo, Venturis influence on other artists has been least as important as his own work.
One of the very first artists to benefit from Venturi appears to have been Kahn. Venturi
influenced Kahn in significant ways, ultimately helping him find his way forward along his own
journey. His was by no means the only presence in Kahns life to do so, but he was probably one of
the most profoundly important and certainly one of the least acknowledged. Key contributions of
the youthful Venturi on the elder Kahn appear to be so significant to Kahns artistic development
that vital aspects of Kahns architecture may never have emerged without Venturis influence.
Kahn left little evidence of the contributions of others in his work, and admitted even fewer.
Though there is not (and probably never will be) indisputable proof, there is abundant archival
evidence suggesting Kahns development as an artist was shaped by Venturi.
The impact of that
influence is neither simple nor obvious; Kahn is be seen by most as an absolute opposite of Venturi,
as he ultimately was in many ways. But each incorporated the influence of the other, advancing their
own interpretations of those influences (in Venturis words, to evolve out of one another). 40
Productive practicing architects are not lone geniuses. Kahn, like any great architect, applied what
his life experience and his accumulated understandings of design had offered him, incorporating it
into his own architectural vocabulary a remarkable and distinctive vocabulary, that, as Scott
Brown has written, is his own. 41
40 Venturi, Robert. Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic Architecture. MIT Press, 1996
41 Scott Brown, Denise. A worms eye view of recent architectural history Architectural Record, February 1984
25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brownlee, David B. & De Long, David G. Louis I. Kahn: In the Realm of Architecture
Museum of Modern Art, 1997
Brownlee, David B., De Long, David G., & Hiesinger, Kathryn B. Out of the Ordinary: The Architecture
and Design of Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Associates. Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2001
Bttiker, Urs, Louis I. Kahn Light and Space
Watson-Guptill Publications, 1995
Goldhagen, Sarah Williams. Louis Kahns Situated Modernism.
Yale University Press, 2001
Johnson, Eugene J. and Lewis, Michael J. Drawn From the Source: The Travel Sketches of Louis I. Kahn.
MIT Press, 1996
Larson, Kent. Unbuilt Masterworks: Louis I. Kahn.
Monacelli, 2000
Lobell, John. A Lucid Mystic Helped Transform Our Architecture.
Smithsonian, July 1979, Volume 10, Number 4
Ronner, Heinz, and Jhaveri, Sharad. Louis I. Kahn Complete Work 1935-1974
Birkhuser, 1977
Schwartz, Frederic. Mothers House: The Evolution of Vanna Venturis House in Chestnut Hill
Rizzoli, 1992
Scott Brown, Denise. A worms eye view of recent architectural history.
Architectural Record, February 1984
Scully, Vincent. Louis I. Kahn.
Braziller, 1962
Tyng, Anne Griswold. Louis Kahn to Anne Tyng: The Rome Letters 1953-1954
Rizzoli, 1997
Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture.
Venturi, Robert. Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic Architecture.
MIT Press, 1996
Wiseman, Carter. Louis I. Kahn: Beyond Time and Style
New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2007
26
APPENDIX A
Interview with Denise Scott Brown, February 16, 2007
Verbatim transcript notes:

DSB: What is the nature of your research? Is this a doctoral dissertation?
SR: Initially, Im researching this topic as a thesis project to complete a Masters degree, but
I also see it as having potential to carry through to research beyond that level.
DSB: Is this a term paper?
SR: The thesis is a terminal project for the degree, a graduate level project of seven to ten
credits or so, supported by a faculty committee its a research project.
DSB: Before you come visit us, you should try and do what you can in preparation. Look
at our website, and the Penn archives website. William Whittaker is the archivist there, and will be
most helpful. Call ahead and discuss all this with him.
SR: Brownlee & Delong write that it is tempting to link these variations as a group to ideas
that Robert Venturi may have helped to stimulate, for in Kahns immediate work to follow are even
stronger reflections of what Denise Scott Brown has claimed
Do you have thoughts about why
they went right up to the edge here, then stopped?

DSB: As architectural historians, they probably feel they have only circumstantial evidence to
support any further claim.
SR: Vincent Scully writes So Kahn himself was eventually liberated by Venturi to recall his
own past, no less than that of humanity as a whole, and to build upon it. Those elements of design,
mostly Roman, which are early in Venturi and late in Kahn, attest to that.
someone I should interview?
27
Would Scully be
DSB: Vincent is quite protective of Lou. He seems to need to make archetypical heroes,
who descend from the heavens. Hes crazy fiery, plows through facts, is very temperamental. He
has made a point of ignoring me and my contributions fully, and has influenced many other
historians in that direction.
He is a very talented writer, can turn a phrase, but he has a view to
advance.
SR: So, he is very much a proponent of the lone genius idea?
DSB: Yes, exactly.
SR: In writing the quote I cited, Scully was discussing that point in history where Mr.
Venturi was working on the Vanna Venturi house and was going over to Kahns studio for crits, etc.
DSB: Bob was very trusting of Lou. He was trying out ideas on Lou, in a very trusting way.
SR: While I am in Philadelphia, are there other individuals I should try to interview?
DSB: Nathanial Kahn, Harriet Patterson, and Alex Tyng are all in the area and have strong
ties to Bob, who has been something of a father figure.
Perhaps the Philadelphia architect, Santo
Lipari, who Lou often called on the phone for late night talks. Lous taxi drivers said he talked more
than he should have that would be anecdotal at best. Lous widow is very protective of Lou and
probably would not be helpful.
SR: It seems well documented, widely known, that Kahn developed as an architect through
his interactions with others
DSB: All artists grow in this way. But it is not very nice to borrow, and never acknowledge
the borrowing.
SR: Kahn never wanted to credit anyone else, it seems. (Discussion of Tyng, probability that
she designed the Trenton Bathhouse; discussion of the repeating pattern of Kahn not
acknowledging key work or contributions of others. DSB mentions Carter Manning interviewing
Tim Reland, who discusses a moment in Kahns studio when Kahn is told Anne has something
28
the concept for the Trenton bathhouse.
SR mentions that Tyng claims in Louis Kahn to Anne
Tyng The Rome Letters that she was the sole designer of the Trenton Bathhouse; DSB says she
believes that, lists several reasons why...)
DSB: Bob and I went to a very prominent lecture, and afterwards (we were sitting in a plaza
after the lecture) Bob said he suddenly realized that all of those ideas (e.g., the wall parting and there
was the column) came from him. Lou obfuscated his sources through his rhetoric, which he also
used to work out, test, and refine ideas (his and others, represented as his alone).
DSB: Lou was competitive and sometimes not nice with students. He could be critical
in a destructive way. I thought it could be jealousy. Bob told me he had never been treated this
way; I suggested that he may not have been seen as a threat?
SR: Mr. Venturi has been silent about this topic (Venturis influence on Kahn). Would he
consider speaking with me about it? As a primary source, his input would clearly be invaluable to
my work.
DSB: (Reminds me of her earlier reference to his brief discussion concerning this topic in
Iconography & Electronics) Possibly he would consider it, perhaps, if he thought you would
be responsible about it, documenting your evidence, not being sensational.
It would be best to
send him an e-mail. Tell him that you talked to me, that you are coming to Philadelphia, that you
hope he would be open to meeting with you. He can handle things easily through his secretary this
way. He has broken his arm and his involvement in the office has been cut back of late.
SR: Is there a time frame that would be better for you for me to arrive in Philadelphia to
speak further with you?
DSB: We will be traveling in April and quite busy prior to that, so after April would be best.
Send me a resume about yourself, and we will build the next set of involvements on that.
29
Additional recollections supported by notes:

I mentioned that the topic would be difficult to advance forcefully from their position
(better for an outside researcher to build the argument with the claim of scholastic objectivity, etc.)
Ms. Scott Brown affirmed that it had been said to her that while it is all very good of her to support
her husband, she was after all writing about her husband.
I inquired about direction she might offer toward specific evidence in the work of Kahn that
could document Venturis influence on Kahn through his work. She noted that Kahn did not like
to admit influences etc. and probably would not have left overt evidence; that I should go to the
archives, look at the work, evaluate what I find there in light of what I know about Kahn and
Venturi and their work.
She discussed Peter Reeds doctoral work on early planning in
Philadelphia as an example of that kind of detective work. (Reed documents, through meeting
notes, that Kahns streets as rivers idea was a borrowing from another group.)
Ms. Scott Brown said their work has always been about making Modernism part of a longer
tradition (although this idea was hijacked by people like Philip Johnson for very specious aims).
She says this aspect of Venturis work that influenced Kahn was characterized by some as a bad
influence making Kahn go soft.
She discussed how many architects influenced by Kahn (mentioning Ando) are less
sophisticated than Lou was, in that Lou draws from within the problem; he does not impose an
arbitrary geometry from without. Mentioning Dacca, discussed how Kahn understood the scarcity
of some materials, the abundances of others; understood how human labor played out in the
realization of building with handmade bricks in abundance (where concrete is scarce).
She mentioned that it would be interesting to study how architects who were in Lous
studios at Penn went on to build initially, and perhaps if/how they subsequently adapted to
expediencies or influences of modern economies, or fashions.
30
APPENDIX B
Interview with Dr. David Brownlee, April 30, 2007
DB: Its clear to me that Kahn drew ideas pretty concretely from the younger people well,
not necessarily the younger people the community of people he worked with. What I cant really
put together and there really doesnt seem to be any evidence to work with is exactly what
Venturi may have been saying and doing within Kahns earshot that is connected to something that
Kahn then did.
There are a couple elusive things, though. In no particular order, these are the
things that look like they might be reflections of influence coming from Venturi to Kahn. One is, I
would say, the general, more literal historical referencing that Kahn makes.
One sees a little bit of
it in the Trenton bathhouse which doesnt help this argument, because that is before Venturi, that
is in 55 I think that is before Venturis working for Kahn.
SR: Actually, my notes indicate that Venturi was working briefly for Kahn before he left for
Rome He was working for Kahn while the Trenton project was underway, as was Anne Tyng, of
course both Venturi and Tyng just back from Rome at that point
DB: Yes, youre right about that. OK, well, I have a hard time looking at the Trenton
bathhouse and seeing the influence of Venturi.
In any case, what happens in the late 50s is a
more palpable historical reference. There is the peculiarity of what I call the Philadelphia corner
the plan form that is sucked in at the corner the diagonal across the corner (refers to Kahns
Goldenberg house and Venturis beach house). They are both 59. Now I have to say, on the face
of it, this (Goldenberg) is a lot more sophisticated looking design. But that element of design is seen
in Mitchell Giurgolas work, and in Vreelands work. Thats a vocabulary that has gone around it
pops up in Kahns work at this time - Khans dorm at Bryn Mahr, and the Richards Medical
Building has it sort of implicitly you enter off the diagonal of a corner
31
SR: You see this corner treatment as something specifically about the Philadelphia School?
DB: I do. It all appears about the same time?
SR: Do you think anyone can be identified as being responsible for it? Does Venturi have a
hand in it?
DB: I dont know. One of the things I would venture is to say that a more established
architect like Kahn with a formal vocabulary already established may not be the place where you
look for such provocative innovation. It certainly happens but it is a teasing sort of thing. And
another formal trait I see coming in at this time are, what I call another Philadelphia School trait, the
big chimneys. They pop up out of the skyline in everybodys work about this time. Those would
be places I would look for anything you can in terms of concretely dating who does what first. I
have found nothing written that acknowledges or even suggests that kind of influence between the
two, having worked through the papers of both.
There is not much to go on Kahn, I think,
writes a letter of recommendation for Rome. But thats about it. It has always been said that after
the 60s Kahn expressed verbally his respect for Venturi, but said he was unwilling to go that far.
He did not follow Venturis interest into Pop culture. Or, you know, large graphics. Or into the
vocabulary of commerce and the strip.
And fundamentally, I think, continued to believe in
abstraction. He did not believe that buildings required words or intelligible historical references in
order to be meaningful. At one point, he said that he liked ruins because in ruins the architectural
forms had been detached from associated use. They had no denotative meaning left with them
anymore, and in that sense continued to be an abstractionist, a modernist of that kind. The things
that I see that I can plausibly say are the contributions are some of those stylistic I wont call them
quirks, but they are stylish bits and pieces and within that, the broader acceptance of things that
people could call historical in his work. Now mind you, he was almost always hostile to the notion
that anything he did had specific historical references. His willingness to talk about his fondness for
32
history generally, and to speak admiringly of medieval and ancient buildings, never allowed you to
draw a connection (that was pretty obvious) between these historical precedents and his work.
Whereas Venturi, of course, was underlining that connection wherever possible. Certainly, the
younger mans rhetorical style, in using those forms, did not rub off on Kahn at all. But I think the
case is plausible that in the period of 54 to 58, as the Philadelphia School was coming together, that
some of the distinctive features of it were created by people other than Louis Kahn although
Kahn gets to be their Guru.
SR: A topic I would like to take up with you are tactics to approach this, to take this apart in
a manner that is coherent and scholastically responsible. One of the things I have been looking at is
what Venturi was doing in the 50s where he was the lone voice for positions he was advocating.
Where he is the only person in the whole landscape of personalities that was advancing ideas that to
us now, seem hardly exceptional or challenging but at that time, were very counter to mainstream
thought, that were oppositional to modernist ideologies. So off the charts as to be seen as radical.
Probably the first of those would be the idea of context. As Venturi defined context actually, still
defines it, very specifically and not at all in the general way it is so often thought of today.
That all
would have hit Kahn right at Venturis thesis crit, in 1950. You get the feeling that Kahn starts to
shift his weight from one foot to the other in terms of who he begins to draw influences from,
where he begins to move away from this focus on abstract mathematical constructs and toward a
more sculptural, emotional, massive well, what we now think of as his mature work. All of this
seems to coincide with their returns from Rome it all begins to happen right there in the early 50s.
A lot seems to be happening very quickly, almost at once for Kahn. The challenge, of course, is
parsing things out. There is no way that you can attribute, to any artist, one influence.
DB: I think that is always the case. Most things that happen what historians will generally
confess is that they can find multiple explanations for whatever they are looking at. And that is
33
probably because there are multiple influences. It is probably a rare situation where a person does
something for a single reason. The way I see Kahns style developing is along the lines that you talk
about, but I think there is a long pause between Rome and the heroic Roman-looking sculptural
forms of the late 50s and early 60s. People look at the blank faade of the Yale Art Gallery and
say Rome. I suppose that is true in some sense. But that is not a theme that is picked up and
carried forward in his work at that time. And to be truthful, it is just a large blank brick wall with
string courses in it.
SR: Well, I think we can advance the timeline to 56 when Venturi returns from Rome.
The Yale Art Gallery happened in 52.
DB: Yes. When he comes back when Kahn built the Trenton bathhouse I am pretty
sure that that is the building that Kahn felt was the turning point. We, as historians, probably due
to Vincent Scully, look to the Yale Art Gallery and say that that is the building. But if you look, for
instance, at the Philadelphia Psychiatric Hospital, I dont think the Yale Art Gallery is that big of a
change. I think the change comes at Trenton.
SR: Reading Tyng, in her book, she makes clear her disappointment in Kahn denying her
acknowledgement once again, with his famous quote saying he felt the world discovered him with
the Yale Art Gallery, but he felt he discovered himself with that little bathhouse.
DB: That rings true to me. You know, I think it depends on what you think is important. I
think that the important things in Kahns evolution in the 50s occur in the way he thinks about
planning. And in the way that the open plan of the Yale Art Gallery is replaced by the plan of
rooms, the Society of Rooms that he creates at Trenton. And he of course creates two of them
one for the bathhouse, and also one for the day-camp; they are different little societies, organized by
different social principles. And there are a bunch of other projects; he does a series of houses that
are all pavilion plan houses. And what I think the bathhouse is, is his realization that back in the
34
beginning of his own education, when he was a student in the Beaux-Arts, there was a system that
enabled one to think about parts associated with one another. And the dumbest way to associate
them is to organize them axially and he does that exactly once. Once you decide that space is not
all the same, and its in pieces, its in rooms, you have to decide how to organize them. How do I
organize them? Well I can sort of scatter them, in a modernist way. And the Adler house and the
DeVoires house are examples of that. Or maybe, I could assemble them all in some structural
system, the grid of which would determine things.
And so with Anne Tyng, the Jewish
Community Center main building is defined by a honeycomb structure, and the shapes of the rooms
are defined by the structural system. And the dorms at Bryn Mawr, again, with Tyng. But Kahn
really was a formalist not a structural engineer and for him, ultimately the more powerful, the
more artistic solution, was the one that manipulated form, and organized it, and fundamentally
played against the expectations that axial alignments create for you. So, having done that once he
creates a scattering of those at the Richards building he then turns all these squares on their ears at
Erdman. At Dacca, he turns them into triangles and echelons. That diagonalizing of stuff, I in my
view, is related to the Philadelphia school and the breaking open of the corner. The corner is now
activated it solves the corner problem that the modernists solved by glazing the corner, that the
Greek architects solved by stretching the metaphyseal as you get closer to the corner, the
Philadelphia School solves the corner by cutting a diagonal through it. And that diagonal is the
organizing principal through which Kahn works out his planning strategies for the next little while.
So that is where I could see Kahn learning significantly from the younger people who were around
him at that time. The tricky thing is trying to figure out any individuals role in that. Some of those
people are still around. Bob Geddes; Romaldo Giurgola; trying to doing an oral history of the
Philadelphia School might still just barely be possible.
You could talk to Bob Venturi about it,
except that in all honesty, I was never able to get a discussion going with him about it. I dont think
35
they had a sense that they were working together, that they were in much awareness of one anothers
work.
It is very difficult to determine just how these similarities occurred.
acknowledging anything about anybody, or their relationship to anybody.
Nobody is
And then, on that
foundation, the great echoing Roman-like forms begin to rise. I would say the first building you
begin to see that has that character is Rochester. Which is 58, 59 basically, just after Richards.
Richards has the big ventilating towers, but its still a sort of light-footed building, on its prestressed structural system, which lifts everything lightly off the ground.
And there is another Kahnian thing, in early Venturi. This house the Pearson house
has this screen wall here. The Luwanda, Angola embassy project by Kahn you know, there are a
lot of forms out there held in common.
SR: The Pearson house has a lot of elements in it that I think illustrate ideas that Denise
Scott Brown talks about -layering, holes in walls
DB: Yes, she does.
SR: And she talks about Mannerist exception
DB: I find it hard to think of Kahn as a mannerist. But I Maybe the Goldenberg house,
which is almost unique; right where you expect the corner to be, there is nothing.
SR: I think about Dacca, the fact that he built all that out of mud. That seems like a pretty
contextual kind of move.
DB: I think thats a fair call, but context is such an enormously broad term. There are so
many different kinds of things that get called context at this time. What Kahn, to me, seems to be
interested in, is a set of contexts that add specificity to a project, that move it away from the open
plan and the universality of the International Style. So one of the contexts is the place. If it is to be
a building surrounded by grey buildings, you make it grey. Erdman at Bryn Mawr, the Exeter
Library, the Richards building.
36
Incidentally, you know the dining hall there, at Exeter boy, that is a Venturi-like profile.
That simple picture of a house, the peaked room with the central chimney.
Anyway, so one is the physical location. The other context that Kahn was clearly interested
in was the specificity of human function. It is a library; the context of the use of this building is the
library function.
Here is my picture of how a library operates; there is a central space where a
librarian opens books to attract people; people take the books and walk to the light to read them.
Here is my picture of what a womens dormitory looks like. There are communal spaces - an
entrance hall, a living room, a dining room - where people can come together, and then they retreat
to a perimeter and their individual rooms. Here is my picture of how a scientific academic research
facility works. Small teams work independently, without getting much bigger or much smaller, on
projects that do not require contact with one another. This is all the context of human activity.
But there are other kinds of contexts. There is the context of popular culture; what people
like and do today. Clearly something the Venturis are interested in; not something Kahn is
interested in. There is the context of the natural environment. What Lawrence Halprin is interested
in; not really what the Venturis are interested in. For me, that notion is too big, too multifarious to
have a parent, to have a mother.
You know, the Venturis themselves, their fascination with popular culture comes out of the
British direct observation movement of the 1940s that Denise heard about and saw echoes of in the
east end of London when she was a student in London in the 1950s. Thats where they get their
interest in pop culture, what people actually do. The Smithsons, Team Ten. Oh! The slum and
the medieval city as a model for modern urbanism. Those are things the Venturis are interested in,
but Kahn not.
SR: I think that is specific to Denise Scott Browns interest. I think for Venturi, it started
with a much more limited kind of focus.
37
DB: Yes, what he is talking about in his senior thesis, yes.

SR: But recognizing that both Kahn and Venturi were both influential in going against the
grain of modernist thought; the reason I think Venturis interest in context might have relevance is
because modernism seemed to seek to ignore or overcome context. I think of Kahns one admitted
mentor, Le Corbusier. Corbus heroic building in France and his heroic building in India; its all
basically Corbu; Corbu here, Corbu there
DB: Yes. But by the time we are talking about, there are other people who well, Paul
Rudolph is designing buildings in Sarasota Florida 49, 50? that are designed specifically for the
particularities of the climate there. Eero Saarinen builds dormitories at Yale that he says are
medieval masonry without masons seeking to echo the Gothic revival forms of the Yale campus
in modern materials. Walter Gropius, in rewriting what the International Style means once he gets
to the states, says that the notion that there is a single style has been overstressed; what is universal is
a variety of adaptable forms that can be changed to suit different situations and environments.
Alvar Aaltos popularity at this time and the notion of regionalism. Tanges early work; his own
house in Tokyo in 51, which is basically a sort of tatami mat house sort of Miesianized.
I think all kinds of context are vividly present everywhere. It is possible that at a particular
dinner party, or over a particularly thick pastrami sandwich, words were said between one person
and another that got things going in a particular way in Philadelphia in 1957. But I dont know
where that sandwich was eaten.
My concern with context is that it has all those other mothers. When Saarinens father was
still alive and was designing the GM technical center in Michigan in the late 40s, they were using
automobile paneling; gosh, the context there was the automobile industry.
Its really important; its huge; and I do think it comes out of a pretty broad and wide
recognition that the International Styles rhetoric was pure, perfect, and almost silly. The notion that
38
you could actually do the same thing everywhere. And you look at that chapel that Venturi designs
that he says is a demonstration of contextualization well, I think that would demonstrate that you
could call almost anything contextual.
I mean, I remember looking at Mitchell Guirgolas work when I was in college and reveling
in its respect for the surrounding buildings.
The academic wing on the back of the university
museum Ooh, my gosh, its got a tile roof! Ah! Boy, you know, its almost a 19th century
building! The Provident Mutual Life Insurance Building, behind Independence Hall, where they
saved the faade of the Greek Revival building, which nowadays of course is seen as an atrocious
disfiguration of a historical building, but at the time was seen as respectful.
The terms are big, broad, confusing, and truly important titanic in their importance but it
includes everything from Halperin and Moores Sea Ranch being related to the context of the North
California Coastal scenery to people studying the actual living patterns of Levittowners.
Its (Venturis claim to the concept of context) like Frank Lloyd Wright saying he invented
the carport.
I think the one person who would not have wanted to have been called a contextualist was
probably Kahn although he was but all this other soft stuff like environment, and pop culture,
and those sorts of contexts - I think he would have I mean, Kahn said Architecture is what God
cannot make.
(Laughter.)
His was like the city kids view of nature. I think I quoted that in my discussion of the Salk
Institute, where they got rid of much of the landscaping in the central courtyard.
SR: With Barragn.
39
DB: Yes, playing some sort of role. Thats a little fishy. I think I came out a little more
strongly for his involvement at the time. Keith Eggener has written some things to be honest, I
cant remember which way his argument goes.
SR: I remember reading about Kahn visiting Barragns home in Mexico it would be
interesting to plug that into the timeline I am building here and reading that that event was
important for Kahns thinking.
DB: I think thats the story. Yes, Oh, I remember where this has surfaced - there has been
a big fight to get the Salk Institute on the National Register. And I think it is scholarship related to
that fight that I have been reading as a consultant. The whole fight has been over how much of the
landscape gets included in the site. The Salk Institute wants the boundary drawn about six inches
beyond the edge of the building, and preservationists want the entire site included. The long and
the short of it is that some of the credit for the responsibility for the landscape has shifted to or
from Kahn as a result of this scholarship.
But if you were to walk up to Kahn and say, Kahn, you are a contextualist well, I dont
know. He loved to be in and with people of different kinds.
He reveled in his regular, brief
immersions into the culture of India and Pakistan, loved to be told stories, loved to take in these
places, and in that sense, strove to be contextual.
SR: Well, Im looking for ways in, tactically. I can see Im losing ground here on that
approach because when I operate on the premise that Venturis was a lone voice talking about
context in the 50s, that might be a nave position to take.
DB: Yeah, Im afraid it is Denises view, but not one that stands up very well. I think, in a
curious way, Venturi is more important than that. That is to say, no one creates the weather.
Context was the weather.
What he created was a node of human creativity within that weather
system. What he did was not you know, he did not just stand out in the rain. He chose to create
40
something with it to channel the rain. To take it into a view of architecture that was very highly
focused and specific on just a few things that he judged to be important. That is art.
Art and
weather are different. Weather has no meaning. Weather just comes down. Its just there. Art has
meaning. And I think that is what he should be applauded for.
In that sense, Kahn was also standing in the weather, and he created a different kind of art.
He was working in the same weather system the context of the time.
I truly do think there is a story we were not able to parse of Venturis relationship to
Saarinen. We say a little bit about it. But Saarinens is a very fertile imagination at this time. He
really is someone who is taking modern architecture apart, and saying things have to be more
specifically about feeling, and references to knowable things and objects, in history and elsewhere.
Saarinen can make a building that looks like a duck. He can make a building that looks like a castle.
He can make a building that looks like an airplane wing. He is doing that already.
And I think what Venturi then in turn learned from Kahn and that reinforced his already
nerdy seriousness was that architecture was one hell of a serious business. It was just about the
most important thing on earth. And so if you were going to talk about pop culture, you had to
establish it within the culture of the renaissance and mannerism. You had to historicize it and make
allusions to T.S. Eliot, and to theories of modern avant-guard poetry. It wasnt like Wham Bam Roy
Lichtenstein whoa, boy, look at those! Theyre big!
There is a lovely little story. Ill have some of these details wrong, but the rough part of it is
this. Kahn teaches mostly at Yale until 1956, and in 57 he is lured to Penn. I think he was offered
the chair position at Yale, but turns it down. Paul Rudolph comes in about this time, and one of the
first projects he assigns at Yale is a custard stand. Kahn had been assigning projects dealing with
important civic buildings, and someone comes in and assigns the students a custard stand as a
project. Well, that was what the influence of this enthusiasm for pop culture could lead to. And I
41
think it is notable that Venturi never assigns students a custard stand as a project; no, its more like,
lets go to Times Square and study it as though it was Piranesis Rome! Lets go and study Las Vegas
as though we are art historians trying to define its forms the way Wittkower studied and analyzed
renaissance forms.
If there are any soft underbellies in this project of trying to figure this out, the two that occur
to me that are possibly fruitful are a) trying to find other people who were around in the 50s to talk
about the social dynamic between these two people, and b) literally trying to correlate the dating of
drawings in Kahn and Venturis work and trying to identify which ideas occur first where. Most of
these drawings are un-datable at least not dateable specifically enough because most were for
private residences where there was almost no trail of correspondence and documentation.
We did not go at this with the intention of testing this particular hypothesis. We did not do
anything that in any way at all goes toward trying to answer these questions. I suppose if it had been
there staring us in the face but it wasnt staring us in the face. We had Denises allusion to this
possibility which is an attractive notion. I think it is fair to say that Venturis would have been a
reinforcing role in these directions; determinative? Maybe. Thats about as far as we could go.
SR: Well, that seems to be where it stands. Bill Whittaker has been very helpful with me
today, and has taken this apart with me, and had some obvious concerns. He suggested something
just like your first suggestion. He says that has not been done.
DB: No, it sure hasnt been done.
SR: We found a class list from Venturis theory class, in the spring of 63. So the thought is,
lets talk to those people.
DB: Wow. Wow. Yeah.
SR: Lets see what they remember. Because I think the social dynamic Ive been at this
long enough to know firsthand how things work is a critical thing.
42
DB: I think you are absolutely right. And I think that on the face of it, I would be inclined
to believe that when you see changes in an older architects work, the first thing to look at is the
younger people around him who are hatching new ideas. That makes sense to me.
SR: Kahn has this lifelong pattern of reflecting the influences that he pulls toward him, or
that he chooses to use as a lens.
DB: I think that is certainly true.
SR: Which may lend some gravity to the Venturi connection. It would have been Kahns
choice of course. He would have had to have recognized things in Venturi that he saw as having
value.
DB: I think that is very true. And I have to say this to you this is a social dynamic
scholarship. All of us who have talked with Bob and Denise well, at a certain level, Denise claims
so much, you have a natural tendency to push back against it. But it is important not to push too far
against that, as a scholar. They have accomplished a great deal. And I may have pushed back too
far on this notion of Venturis influence on Kahn at this time. But to look at the other side, Denise
really was not in the loop yet.
SR: Well, that is what Anne Tyng said.
DB: (Laughs) Well yeah! Absolutely! From Annes point of view, no one but she ever had
any substantial effect on Kahn. And thats unfair too - you know, Oscar Stonorof was pretty
influential in shaping Kahns thinking in the 50s - there continues to be the ugly and petty
squabbling about the mantle of the master, which has been going on for quite a while now.
But I think the reality is that most cohesive, powerful ideas are the products of communities,
of cultural settings. And the Philadelphia School for want of a better word for it clearly came
out of such a community.
43
SR: That is an interesting topic in itself. And what I heard you say earlier is that no one
seems to think they were a part of that.
DB: No I have never heard anyone I would love I just dont know! No one has ever I
mean we tried to track these things down to some extent. But what you dont find is any account of
people getting together in any organized way or interacting in any identifiable pattern. Or someone
saying, It was Kahns studio crits we all went to. You just dont get that. Maybe, in talking to a
bunch of these people, you can get some sense of that. You know, Kahn had a couple of people
loyally following his studio crits. But they werent Aldo Gurgola, Bob Geddes, or Bob Venturi.
SR: Bill has a list of thirty or forty people over there. Some are not going to be alive or
reachable. But a lot of them are.
DB: Someone else to talk to is John Rauch.
SR: Bill said there is some
DB: There is some very bad blood. They fired him. They parted on very bad terms. They
believed he was stealing from them. I only dealt with him in a straightforward way, and he seemed
like an eminently rational, sane person and a pretty good architect in his own right. And he certainly
was there I think early enough to be helpful (consults reference) yes, 1960. William Short. Did
we talk to him? I cant remember.
SR: Quite a cast of characters.
DB: Yes, it certainly is.
SR:
Well, in taking away the counsel of someone who knows more about this than
anyone
DB: To be honest, I could not afford to figure this out. That is to say, if I did figure it out,
one side or the other would hate me, and there is a political price to be paid for I couldnt do
further work with these people if I figured that one out. After a couple more deaths if you are
44
working in my position well, I guess I also have to say it did not strike me as being even feasible
to figure out. And maybe it is. Maybe more can be done.
I like the idea in general regardless of what you find out about this specific question
finding out more about the interactions of these people in this period of time is bound to be darned
interesting. Because there are lots of things going on not just between Venturi and Kahn. And it
is a good piece of history it was an exciting time.
SR: You are echoing what Bill has been suggesting here, suggesting that the problem is
better framed as being part of a larger dynamic, a larger series of interactions.
DB: Yes. I have heard it said, for instance, that Bob Geddes was really the one who led the
way toward the sort of straightforward directness, the toughness of the Philadelphia School. Penn
just tore down a lovely little building that embodied that the Pender Laboratory.
Where are you located?
SR: Washington Washington State.
DB: Okay. So they cant get at you.
SR: Everybody asks me that, really the first question. Its like they want to know what camp
Im in.
DB: Yes. Well Im in it up to my neck because I know the Venturis very well. And care for
them. I dont want to disprove anything they are claiming. And so, in a way, I dont look. And on
the other hand, I also have very fond associations with Anne Tyng and with all of Kahns children.
So there are still elements of that story that are tough to talk about. Nathanials film helps a lot. I
dont know if you noticed, but we omitted any biographical information about the children. They
were quite shy about it, and we did not want people doing the math and looking at who Kahn was
sleeping with where and that sort of thing.
SR: Denise Scott Brown suggested I speak to the children.
45
DB: I dont know how they would know anything. The oldest would have been maybe nine
when all this was happening. They couldnt.
SR: Well, thank you so much.
DB: It has been very nice meeting you. You will find Bill is the institutionalized memory
the person who leads to all of these possibilities. And I do think intrinsically, it is very interesting,
important stuff. But I think the broader how shall we say, context? of this is probably the thing
that in the end will be the most fruitful rather than trying to answer a specific question because there
are a lot of very interesting people bouncing in and out of the story. I think all history we write
today tends to do this probably, at the end of the day, you will wind up downplaying both Kahn
and Venturi, as this other sea of people rise up with their voices and their ideas.
46
APPENDIX C
Interview with Denise Scott Brown and Robert Venturi, May 3, 2007
SR: Ive been in touch with Anne Tyng, as you suggested, who has been very gracious and
willing to talk with me further.
RV: Good. I havent seen her for a while - Anne is an old friend. She is in San Francisco
now, right?
SR: Yes, she is. Ive been here this week at the architectural archives, and I have discussed
the topic at length with Bill Whitaker and met with Dr. Brownlee.
This is a challenging topic to
parse out, and as Ive gotten into it, it seems to be a much larger topic than I had initially realized.
While I was initially looking at threads of influence on Kahn that could be traced to you, it seems
that your influence should be seen as having been not simply on Kahn per se so much as it would
have been on a whole community of other influential people, a community in which Kahn was a
major participant and of course also a major beneficiary. And Kahn was developing as an artist in
the context of working in this community, of course.
RV: Please close the door
SR: Well, I would like to start by asking you about your return from Rome what are your
recollections of discussions you and Kahn may have had about what you saw there, what he saw
there?
RV: Well, I met Louis Kahn in the summer of 47. I had just graduated from Princeton and
I was working for an architect named Robert Montgomery Brown, who had a small office on one
floor of a Victorian townhouse in central Philadelphia. On another floor was another architect
whom no one had ever heard of named Lou Kahn, who was working there with Anne Tyng.
would meet him in the elevator, where he was always quite cordial. And I began to appreciate his
47
work, and I in January of 50 asked George Howe and Lou Kahn whom no one had ever heard of
to be on my masters thesis jury. And that was that. And the next few years, I was teaching at
Yale and Penn, and especially at Yale I kept saying you ought to get this guy Kahn to come in as a
visiting critic.
They didnt seem to pay much attention, but at some point he did get there. To
what extent that derived from my influence, I dont know. And then he became the architect for a
couple of buildings there. I have written in my book (Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic
Architecture) about how I influenced him as much as he influenced me. Later, I learned that had
happened to a lot of people that he got a lot of his ideas from his students - which is fine, except
that he never acknowledged any of them.
I had a friend teaching at Harvard who warned me later
that Hey, you ought to watch out for Kahn, he gets a lot of his ideas from his students. And I
think what I have written here pretty much covers my experience and my thoughts on Kahn. They
come out of two lectures, one at the opening of an exhibition on Kahn here at Penn, and then again
at the opening of the same exhibition in Tokyo.
SR: Yes, you sent me those pieces, and I have these books
RV: Good, then you have everything.
SR: One of the things that I have found interesting was the topic of your thesis in 1950,
which ran counter to mainstream thought of Modernism at the time. While there was architecture
was being done then that was contextually responsive, no one was framing it that way, no one was
discussing context as an architectural issue; I dont think anyone else was talking about it.
RV: Yes, I dont know that anyone else was talking about it either. I think I was the first
one who did. Now, of course, context is a clich. Overdone. But yes, concerning my thesis, I
remember when I got the idea, I was reading in the Department of Psychology library at Princeton,
and I came across some writing on Gestalt psychology, and it grew out of that.
The thesis was
completely anti-modern, in that Modernism dictated that you design from the inside out. Frank
48
Lloyd Wright and Le Corbusier both said that - that you design from the inside out. The outside
evolved from the interior requirements the outside was a result of interior program and
functionalism.
Designing from the outside in was something I brought back; I said hey, you do
both. You design from the inside out and from the outside in. And the tension that creates can lead
to great architecture.
And I very much emphasized that working with context did not mean that
you simply made your building analogous to the existing context but that meaning can be derived
from contrast as well. (That meaning can be derived from contrast was something I learned from
my teacher Jean Lebeatue.) And that was highly a new idea. Now of course, it gets overdone. And
it has been misinterpreted, that you have to be analogous when acknowledging context.
SR: Did the topic come up a lot with other people on the faculty at the time? I mean, I
think of someone like Ian McHarg; context was his business...
RV: McHarg I knew, and heard a lot about him I dont think he was talking specifically
about context. Landscape architecture is of course a contextual endeavor, framing the background
for a building and other elements. But I think McHarg was looking more at the horticultural issues
of design.
DSB: The ecological, the environmental.
RV: And that was very important, and very good. But it was ecological and horticultural,
not looking at the topic of context as such.
SR: Was the topic of context sort of in the wind after some period of time at Penn? Or
After your presence there?
RV: Oh, I think people eventually got hold of it, both at Penn and at Yale. But it derived
distinctly from me. Lou Kahn, to the extent that he dealt with context, he learned from me.
SR: When you think about how Lou Kahn addressed context, can you think of specific
examples in his work?
49
RV: I dont think he really dealt with context very much. Did he say he did? I dont think
he did.
DSB: When I was doing a campus plan for Bryn Mahr, I had to deal with Lou Kahns siting
of those dorms. I began to understand his siting in terms of the method of the design of previous
architects, Cope and Stewartson. It was interesting to see that, and I think that was the extent of his
consideration of it the influence of other peoples designs and design philosophies. I dont think
he used the word context. Context was very much in the air in postwar Europe. So much so that
one might say they didnt talk about much else. Again, they did not use that word, but always, the
question was how do we tie in with the historical city
RV: I was the guy who said, in Complexity and Contradiction, Modernism is not antihistorical, it represents an evolution from history.
It can be said to be a revolution but a
revolution within the evolution of history. It did not represent the end of history.
SR: I know Kahn spend time in Rome, but I wonder if he saw the same Rome you saw.
RV: I think not. I was there for two years at the academy I loved Baroque Rome. And at
the very end of my time there, in 1956, I realized it was not Baroque that I was finding relevant, but
mannerism. And that was a revelation.
DSB: I write about context in context in this book. There is a whole chapter about many
aspects of how we look at context.
RV: And I write a little bit about context in this book (Architecture as Signs and Systems)
where I include parts of my thesis on context. (Reads portions of his writing on context).
SR: Do you remember why you were over in the psych library reading about Gestalt
psychology to begin with?
RV: Because thats a really good question because I was looking into meaning. into
meaning rather than expression!
50
DSB: But who said to you, It would be a good idea to go over to the psych library to look
into meaning?
RV: No one. It was me.
SR: In the Worms Eye View article, there is a list of things that Lou Kahn learned from
you: (lists)
RV: Well, that was your article, Denise.
DSB: Yes, but I got that list directly from you. I said, lets list the things that Lou
specifically learned from you and that is what you said. So that list comes directly from you.
RV (Looks for other lecture, the Tokyo lecture, Louis Kahn Remembered.) This is really
important, and its all here, be sure you read this one.
RV: I also indicate here what we learned from him.
SR: Do examples of mannerist exception or distortion appear in his work?
RV: I dont think you see much of that in his work he is after consistency.
DSB:
There is some in Dacca, where bits get cut off.
And things like that, for
circumstantial reasons. And that was very late, after you had had all those discussions.
RV: It might be; Ive hardly looked at those buildings. They just never interested me much.
RV: The idea of the servant space was a beautiful idea that influenced me much. So the
influence went both ways.
SR: In the book Mothers House, you talk about the influence of light and designing in
complex section. This is something that has always been there in your work.
DSB: You talked about letting light in between columns in your lectures.
And after we
went to that lecture of Lous and we sat in the park, you realized that his poetic discussion of the
columns parting and there was light, and you realized that was all yours.
RV: Yes, yes you have written about that, havent you?
51
DSB: No, I have not written about that. I remember that.

RV: We went to this lecture at the Art Alliance, and afterwards we sat in Rittenhouse square
and I said to Denise that I realized that a lot of these things were coming directly from me. It was a
profoundly disillusioning realization.
RV: By the way, another idea that came from me was the window in front of the chimney
that he did in that house in the neighborhood of Mothers House. The Esherick house. That was
my idea.
DSB: I had been talking to David Crane, who had been observing Lou at faculty meetings.
Sardonically talking about how Lou would always wait until the younger faculty were all quiet and
then begin talking so they would all hear him, and how he was often not very nice to them. Like he
was competitive with them. I told Bob about this a few days before Bob had his realization in the
square about what was happening with Lou. I told Bob about this and he said, He never does that
with me, and I said maybe that was because he did not see you as a threat.
In that context,
perhaps an insult.
RV: I think this list here is pretty good. It pretty much says what I think.
SR: There are notes in Kahns correspondence about you maintaining a relationship with
Kahns practice as a visiting critic after you had left there. What was the nature of the relationship
between the two of you after you had gone out on your own?
RV: I work in his office for a time, and Anne Tyng was there then.
discussion between us until I had this realization in the square.
There was a lot of
That was when suddenly I had a
whole new view.

DSB: By the way, the person who said Annes got something was Tim Vreeland.
SR: I would like to go over a list of students that was in your archives from the theory class,
in 1963. Vreeland was on that list.
52
DSB: I have a whole file of those names in my teaching materials. Many students, one of
whom was John Scully, the famous head of Apple.
SR: Well I would love to get my hand on those. I have this plan to talk to these students.
DSB: It would be very interesting to talk to the students that were in Lous Masters class as
well. By the way, the same lists that we have should be at Penn. All the teaching records should be
there.
SR: Yes, but they wont give me access to those because of university privacy policies.
DSB: I suppose thats the point.
SR: I dont even have contact information, so I will have to go on from there.
You will
remember many of them many have gone on to have very significant careers. Well, Steve Izenour
was one of them.
DSB: Yes, well, you see in the Fall I taught a theory class in landscape architecture and
planning, and in the spring Bob taught the theories class on architecture.
And I was involved in
both classes. So on that basis, between us we would have seen most of the students who passed
through.
SR: I think the impact you were both having at Penn is much larger than that of an
influence on Kahn. There is a much larger truth here, I think. And much of the influence you had
on Kahn might have been somewhat indirect passed through the students.
DSB: The main influence of the theories classes would have been on the first year design
studios. I think it was a very effective teaching method that Perkins developed.
SR: Well, certainly something was happening just look at what has happened to the
graduates of that program.
53
DSB: Yes. Well, at the time, these were the only theories courses being taught anywhere.
How did that happen? I have my own theory about it based on the fact that I was there at the time.
I dont know if this is useful to you, since it is not what you came asking about.
SR: I think it is very important.
DSB: Well, Ill tell you what I think happened. It had a lot to do with the social revolutions
going on in the city of Philadelphia and all around. I was in the planning school teaching architecture
and planning teaching the opposite thing in each and so the city planning department had been
one where people from the New Deal had been teaching, in the social sciences and economics, and
then Holmes Perkins came with a group of people from Harvard. Young architects, like David
Crane and Larr Genlenco, and Ian McHarg, and so on
RV: Everyone was from Harvard.
DSB: Well not everyone.
RV: Everyone except me and Tim Vreeland.
DSB: Well, Bob Mitchell, Herb Gannes, Jack Dykeman werent from Harvard
RV: Well, they were older.
DSB: Yes they were in the planning department. Some of them came from the University
of Chicago, which had a great school of city planning; they were unable to plan anything. By their
own admission, they were critics. They were gadflies. And so, this heady mixture of older people,
like Bill Wheaton he was from Harvard, but he had also worked in the new deal, and so had Bob
Mitchell, who was an architect who had worked with transportation planning, and Britton Harris,
from the University of Chicago they began the critique that is called Jane Jacobs. The critique of
urban renewal, and of architectural ways of thinking about things, a lot of that really began right
there at Penn.
In the middle of all of that teaching courses like organization and implementation,
and statistics, and all of that, a young firebrand named Paul Davidoff, who had taken a year or so of
54
law at Yale, and was very much a part of the Socratic method which is the way the Yale Law
School teaches and pretty fiery about social conditions and then more scholarly people like
Herbert Gaddes - who did a better critique than Jane Jacobs was much broader but of the same
kind, from the point of view of the needs of poor people and things of that kind Paul Davidoff
began to say we need a class in theory, because planning is not an end state, it is a process. Once
you do that, and you have studied a little philosophy and you have attended Yale Law School, you
probably want a course in theory. So he started working on a course in theory, and I sat in cibbits,
making life much harder for Paul, I later discovered. But he withstood it. That course in theory
was there from 61 or 62. I think Holmes began to think we needed that in architecture as well.
Now Holmes had an idea that the people who come into a graduate school of architecture have
good literary abilities, and verbal skills, and they have learned a whole lot of subject matter, but they
dont know how to be architects. And they dont have manual and graphic skills. So he began to
put together this funny alliance, he said We will be teaching them theory, at the same time we will
give them a lot of drawing practice. Everywhere they go they have to get drawing practice, to catch
up. For the first semester, we will start with the kind of analysis they are used to, but at the same
time we will be giving them intense drawing exercises.
So that part of the way through the
semester, even if the drawing is very basic, they will be able to frame basic ideas graphically. And so
my course in theory, which they were getting at the same time, was trying to get them to span
between verbal and physical thinking at a broad scale - doing a lot of drawing. But he had out
cardboard pattern books of steel and glass buildings and the like with which they were to build up
their vocabulary drawing neighborhood units, and schools, and things like that, by actually drawing
them, to get the drawing experience. They had to draw steel and glass buildings you couldnt use
history. There I was as a young teacher with the unenviable task of ramming down their throats for the first semester things being done the way Holmes wanted it, but the students hated it. I
55
couldnt stand it, and after the first semester, I went to the head of the studio in the architecture
department and said They are just killing me, they hate this. They want to know why they had to
do this busywork. And so I was told to do it the way I thought it should be done, and Holmes
stopped supervising me after the first semester.
So then I began setting out what I thought the
issues were, that they should go and research to tie neighborhood planning to what they were going
to be doing in studio. Once that happened, they got really interested and it was fun. When we did
housing, we looked as much at the minor architecture of Venice as we looked at what Philip
Johnsons house, you see; and they could choose for themselves what they drew. I told them what
the issues were and they should be illustrated with their drawings. And so it became a plausible
course, and that was what really made a difference in studio. Meanwhile, Holmes was looking at this
course Davidoff was teaching, and thinking he had something along those lines established for the
first semester, but didnt have anything set up for the second semester.
He says, We dont want to
hire new faculty, but we have this funny, nerdy guy from Princeton, and he knows history. Maybe
he could give a series of lectures not on theory, but on theories. Different peoples theories, the
same way we had been looking at different peoples architecture to draw. So, different peoples
theories of architecture.
He goes to Bob, and he suggests a few sources that might be good for
him. He doesnt have to pay any more because he has already got him on staff. And there he gets a
nice cheap course which will be useful to help the students catch up with where he thought they
should be, if they were going to be in the graduate school of architecture. I think thats how it
happened. Its all a set of hypotheses, but I was right there I was in all of the faculty meetings.
RV: Out of that course came Complexity and Contradiction.
DSB: And also fifty million other courses in theory
RV: All over the country. One extreme to the other; no theory, then all theory.
SR: Did that all happen in the same year?
56
DSB: I think the first course happened in 61 or 62. Then again in 63, and Bob told me he
worked eighty hours a week preparing for that course the first year, and forty hours a week the next.
RV: Yes. And I also went up and gave it at Yale. The same course.
DSB: 1963, you began writing the book out of your lecture preparation notes.
SR: I looked at those notes. It was amazing those packing boxes full of cut and taped
collages of handwritten and typed thoughts, evolving into versions of a manuscript.
DSB: It was really very exciting. I sat through those lectures because I was going to be
teaching to them it was not any duty, it was just pleasure. It really made you want to get up and
start designing.
RV: How does this connect to Louis Kahn? It doesnt, really, I dont think.
DSB: You used to include well, you see, what Bob did was take one of the Vitruvian
elements expanded, so that one of the Vitruvian elements might have to do with air conditioning,
for example and he would say everything that was to be said, from a theoretical point of view,
about that subject. Taking the different theories of different eras how the Gothic architecture let
in light as opposed to how early Christian architecture let in light; what Gropius thought about it;
what Lou Kahn felt about it; and in the end, what he, Bob, felt about it. All about light, but a real
designers way of looking at a topic. Whereas these people had all had a history course of some sort
or other where Vince Scully taught them the same material, but chronologically. Now, they were
professionalizing the same knowledge by having a designer like Bob, knowing history, but showing
another way of looking at it.
SR: Well, some of those students would eventually wind up in the Masters class. They
would have been carrying all that forward into Kahns studio. And so it seems that that could have
been a very powerful, - indirect and difficult to trace, but a very powerful link nonetheless.
that would seem to be difficult to ignore to discount.
57
One
DSB: By the time those students would have been arriving in Kahns studio, Bob would
have been about to leave. As was I. So I am not sure how much support there was for the
continuation of those ideas. Of course now, there isnt any at all.
RV: Of what, honey?
DSB: Well in other words, our way of thinking about architecture.
RV: Yes.
SR: What is your take on the whole topic of the Philadelphia School?
RV: I think it was a bit of an exaggeration. One thing that I think is positive was that it was
not a promotional thing the way it was among the deconstructionists and the whites vs. greys
and all that so much of that was all self-serving promotion. To some extent, there was a level of
analogy around Louis Kahn. It was in the air but it was not highly unified or organized.
DSB: I think also, that Lou owed a lot to his time in the 40s when he involved with those
same fellows, after all.
RV: Yeah. Good point.
DSB: Although he never talked about that he never talked about any influences some of
the ways he thought were traceable back to those people. And I think that made him much more
powerful, and sets him apart from many of his followers. Some of the thinking that came out of
city planning groups and those discussions he was exposed to, being with Oscar Stonorov and Bob
Mitchell, he seemed to gain some understanding that informed his architecture in a way that is quite
different from, say how Tadao Ando works. Notions of a hierarchy of communities, public and
private, and all those things that you were inclined to talk about if you were an urban planner. You
do see some of that in Lous work. I think that is part of the reason why Lou could cotton onto
some of the things Bob was talking about.
58
SR: This turning point in your relationship with Kahn that happened at the Art Alliance
lecture where Kahn was discussing the idea of walls opening to form columns
DSB: Yes, the walls parting to form columns and then there was light, something like that.
RV: I dont remember, specifically. The method of the lecture pretty much was showing his
work, and analyzing the work. And in analyzing the work, certain key ideas were involved and
expressed. There were something I have never written about, but there were influences on me by
Louis Kahn that had to do with the idea of bringing back a window in a wall.
Modernism had
thrown out the window. You either had an absence of a wall meaning the whole wall was glass
or you had no window, meaning the whole wall was solid. That building there, in France, you see
those windows those windows derive from two row houses Kahn did somewhere in downtown
Philadelphia.
I have not seen them for years no one ever writes about them, they have never
really been acknowledged as being important, but they use these double hung windows those
windows made me think, why not? Why is the window not relevant for architecture; why should
that be thrown out? Thats when I did it in my mothers house. I had a window I used there that
specifically derived from Kahns little row house downtown. Do you remember that, dear?
DSB: No.
RV: Theyve hardly been acknowledged.
RV: The idea of a servant space influenced me. But I think in the end, Lou just became
terribly much a formalist his architecture was primarily dramatic form. I really didnt think too
highly of it.
DSB: Look at the womens dorms at Bryn Mawr. You know where he lived in west
Philadelphia.
You go there and look at the forms its not suburban, its streetcar urban
architecture
SR: Is this on Clinton Street?
59
DSB: No, this is before that, when he was living with his parents. Which he did until he
moved to Clinton Street. There are funny things on the back of the houses which look like those
waste shafts at the Richards Medical Building. But in a way, you can interpret the womens dorms as
a set of row houses, each room a little row house, interlocked the way row houses look as if they do.
And the form the public sector is created by how the buildings are put together. And so there are
three public spaces in the middle, three public squares with houses all around. He is being very
urbanistic. Now, we could have had great fun distorting all that. But it is a very beautiful urban
statement.
SR: Dr. Brownlee was talking about a couple of things he thinks of as being characteristic of
the Philadelphia School. One: big chimneys. The other: what he calls the Philadelphia corner.
The latter, I think he may have written about how various architectural historical approaches solve
the corner problem. Is that ringing any bells for you?
RV: What does he mean by the corner? Big chimney actually I think I may have possibly
been influenced by Kahn to some extent, but I dont think he ever had a chimney like that. My
beach house project, with its big high chimney never built horrified Vince Scully. But then also
fascinated him at the same time.
DSB: You know, the diagonal was very much Philadelphia School.
RV: Yes. The diagonal. Thats right, that diagonal. That, I got from Louis Kahn.
DSB: Well, I know where Lou Kahn got it. He got it from Team Ten. You know, in
Europe, there was a lot of thinking about diagonals at that point. Lou had more influence from
Team Ten earlier than has been generally recognized. I think I discovered how that happened, too.
But thats another story. You know, the conference in Amsterdam in 59 he met Blag Valenca and
Aldo Van Eyck. Thats how Aldo Van Eyck eventually wound up coming to Penn.
RV: Is Blag still living?
60
DSB: I believe so. Van Eyck is dead.

RV: She is in Canada?
DSB: Yes.
RV: She didnt like me in the end, did she?
DSB: I dont know.
RV: I dont know what the hell happened there.
SR: The Pearson house certainly holds lots of examples of things that are listed in the
Worms Eye View article as what Kahn learned from you to look at that list again, his
philosophy of light, the notion of a thing in a thing, layering of enclosed spaces and layering of
juxtaposed walls and openings, discovering windows could be holes in walls, and mannerist
exception, distortion, and inflection in form.
RV: Thats your piece, Denise.
DSB: Yes, but I got that list by taking dictation from you. Its your list.
RV: Well the hole in the wall, he used once. I really took it further, made it significantly
relevant. Then later, as I fell in love with it, and I dont remember to what extent that might have
involved Le Corbusiers influence. I got a lot of that from Le Corbusier via the Villa Savoye.
SR: Well, we certainly see the use of layering in Kahns work later, certainly.
RV: Yes.
DSB: I used to call that he wraps ruins around buildings. That was probably influenced by
Bob.
RV: The Villa Savoye was tremendously influential I loved it and still do. It has a layer
upon which sort of different things happen popping in and out.
DSB: And its a very thin, paper thin layer rather like the stuff at Dacca, except that thats
all circular. But the thinness of the openings.
61
RV: Of course he was very oriented toward concrete, and then in the end, brick came back
into the work. A lot of red brick.
SR: I find it interesting that that last building, he essentially builds out of mud. He goes up
ten feet, then there is a thin course of concrete, then he starts with another ten feet of mud.
DSB: Now that what date is that building?
SR: That project actually spans a long time he worked on it over twelve years
DSB: Let me tell you, I dont think those dates will matter in 59, there was, in the planning
school, a studio called the Chandigarh studio.
We were given, as students, the program of
Chandigarh. We worked with Dave Cranes ideas to design a city using that program. There were
lots of economic philosophies developed by Britton Harris and Dave Crane that influenced our
thinking. Among them was the notion that there are different kinds of capital in building. There is
sweat equity a concept now famous, but not known then there is also the kind for which you
need hard currency. And of which you must use very little. But it might be permissible to use some.
And then there is the kind you make yourself, like mud bricks. A building could be made out of
90% mud bricks and just a little bit of concrete to help you span a big opening. Well, Lou heard all
of that going on and he came to the jury of that studio. And he was quite critical of it, but the one
part he did like was the part where we showed housing made of mud bricks with just a little bit of
concrete used for structural reasons. I suspect there was quite a bit of influence taken away from
that seen later in Dacca. You never see Tadao Ando doing anything like that.
RV: I think it is very interesting how influential Lou has been in the last decades. So much
new architecture is Kahnian.
RV: Have you interviewed the great historian, Vincent Scully?
SR. No.
RV: It could be interesting. He has viewpoints that are not necessarily conventional.
62
DSB: There was a person who worked for Lou for some years, name Harry Rash Pau. And
he lived in Sri Lanka. I dont know if he is still alive. He was alive when we were in India, but that
was in 1985. No, he lives in Dehli. He became a powerful political architect in India. But for quite
some time he worked for Lou, and he had a very cynical attitude about Lou.
He had a planning
background as well as an architectural background, and I used to have dinner with him now and
then, and he had some wry comments about Lou and what was going on at the office, what Lou was
doing at the office.
SR: I would like to talk to anyone who was there. He might be a challenge to get in contact
with
DSB: I have an address. A very old one, but who knows?
SR: The other contact information you could help me with would be Scully.
RV: Yeah, we can give you that. He spends half the year up here and half in Florida. Near
Miami..
DSB: Coral Gables? Near Miami
SR: Is he still teaching?
RV: I think he is!
SR: David DeLong, I have not talked to yet David Streatfield
RV: I dont know him
SR: He is at the University of Washington head of the school of architecture now these
are all people who I have learned were around during the period we have been discussing Arthur
Jones Im going to butcher the pronunciation of a lot of these names
DSB: Arthur Jones used to work for us, has been with Bauer Haeur for a number of years,
may be retired.
SR: Alvin Holm... Steven Goldberg
63
DSB: In New York.

SR: Fred Foote
DSB: California.
SR: Jack Diamond
DSB: Canada.
SR: I have states listed for many of these names, and so far, my notes agree with you. Peter
Arfaa
DSB: Philadelphia. Quite nearby.
SR: Thomas Vernalou? Vernalett?
DSB: Vertalett.
RV: Vertalett.
SR: Mark Ueland
DSB: Mark has a firm in Chestnut Hill.
SR: Rollin La France
RV: Hes around. Lives in Bucks County, which is north of here he is retired.
SR: Bob Geddes?
DSB: Princeton.
SR: He is at Princeton now?
DSB: He was the dean
RV: He is now retired. But he now lives at Princeton.
SR: Herbert Gannes?
DSB: New York. Wont have much to say about Kahn. Paul Davidoff had something
interesting to say about Kahn, but he died. He said, Im beginning to understand why you think he
and I have something in common something to do with great generalities about mankind
64
SR: Mather Lippincott?

RV: He lives in Swarthmore, I think.
SR: David Rinehart?
DSB: He went to California.
DSB: Nick Gianopulos. Have you spoken to him?
SR: No.
DSB: Absolutely someone you must speak to. He was his engineer, forever. He is very
bright, intelligent and, he was our engineer, too pretty insightful about Lous relationship with
us.
SR: Great! Im sure you have his contact information as well.
DSB: Yes.
Now, students of the theory class in 63 Richard Bartholomew.
DSB: He is here. Married to Julia Congress, who heads the archive.
SR: Ah. Thats easy enough.
DSB: Its all very incestuous here.
SR: Gordon Bertrand, Willis Boyer, Miriam Comuico, Jay Coopershon
DSB: Thats almost right, but not quite right. How have you got it spelled?
SR:
Well I took these names from a handwritten class list, and to be frank, the
handwriting left one to interpret a fair amount. I should have brought a photocopy.
DSB: Ive got a picture of that guy in my mind. Coopersmith? I think so.
SR: David Cox, H.A. Davis, Frash DLauro, Robinson Fiedenthal
DSB: Robin, yes. He got very sick. I dont know if he is alive, but he had a degenerative
disease.
65
SR: Stephen Hill, or Allen Hill only last names were on the class list Willard Hottle,
Conor Levy, John Lobell
DSB: He is in New York.
He wrote that scandalous book with Mimi about open love.
Very recognizably involving half the architectural community in New York.

SR: I wasnt aware of that. I just knew about his book on Kahn, which was well, not
nearly so colorful
DSB: Have you read about Ricky Wearman? He was another one. Had a lot to do with
Lou Kahn.
RV: Now, he is in Long Island. Or somewhere up in New York.
SR: John Parker, David Peterson, James Paltou, Bill Rosenberg Denis Sander
DSB: David Peterson, somewhere in California.
SR: Peter Saylor,
DSB: Saylor is here. Has a practice here.
SR: Roont Shusserman
DSB: A scandal. Became a lawyer.
SR: Oh dear
DSB: And he is a very, very bitter guy. And he has managed to we dont know what we
did to him, but he apparently has formed a huge grudge against us when he was our student. He
was very bright. He has taken up suing a client of ours for some years now, to keep the project
from going ahead. By any means he can. His house is right opposite the project, and he is a bright
enough lawyer that he can think of one way and then another way to keep stalling things,
indefinitely. We think he may have finally run out of ways to hold things up he fails every time
but nevertheless, what he is doing is keeping the building from being built. And he says he will
bring the institution to its knees.
66
SR: Every city has one of those, it seems.

DSB: Its hard to know, but anyway, he is not stupid.
SR: Johann Stein, Carl Strona, Morton Weil, Charles Weymouth
DSB: Charlie Weymouth lives near Wilmington.
SR: Ellen Winans, David Williams, or maybe Michael, or mayby Jack Williams
DSB: I think it was David. There is also a James Williamson, who is in Memphis.
SR: Did I mention Guirgola?
DSB: He is in Australia.
SR: This is just the cast of characters I have turned up to potentially talk to at this point I
am sure they will suggest others.
RV: I think jet lag is kicking in. It usually gets you the third day.
DSB: You have this meeting at three. It would be best to not be asleep in that meeting.
SR: Where have you returned from?
RV: We were in Toulouse. And Geneva. We judged a competition for a building next to
the one we did there, and gave a lecture. Two lectures. I am fighting jet lag, and not talking much
here, but if you just get back to what I have written in these books, it is all there.
SR: There is something quite interesting in this one (Mothers House).
RV: That book is rare now.
SR: Actually, I carry this one around
(Pulls first edition copy of Complexity and
Contradiction out of luggage). I bought it in 1977 in Copenhagen, and have been trying to figure it
out ever since.
RV: My God.
DSB: Pretty valuable these days you need to look on e-bay, the prices on these things are
going well, up.
67
SR: Well, this is a worn this is a loved copy.

RV: I corrupted you?
SR: I think the first decade, I couldnt really make much sense of it I didnt have the
foundation, didnt have the background.
DSB: Yes.
SR: I think that when you are a student of architecture, even if you take the kind of history
classes that are available as an undergraduate, about the best you can do is just set the table. You
know, it takes time, experience.
DSB: Yes.
SR: Here it is, in Mothers House: Venturi himself believes the sectional preoccupation
and overhead lighting are his own. He is talking here about Kahns urge to light spaces from
above and indeed to design in section comes to Kahn only later, and is most beautifully
developed in his later museums.
RV: (No response.)
SR: I personally find the Kimbell to be the building I often center on when I think of Kahn.
DSB: I suspect a lot of that detailing was done by someone else. I am not sure who for
example, could it have been Marshal
RV: Marshal Meyers.
DSB: Yes. Marshal Meyers. He was one of those people who held Kahns office together
forever. His wife, Angel Meyers, is still alive. But she probably would have only sardonic, cynical
things to say. But in any case, I suspect that detailing was probably done by Marshal. Its beautiful
detailing, but it doesnt look like Lou.
SR: (Pause) It has some elements of complexity to it; thats for sure. And contradiction.
DSB: Yes.
68
SR: The idea of an arch. There, where we expect to find the compressive element of a
keystone, light pours in but of course, it is not an arch, it is a beam but, of course, where the
beam bears, light is also flowing in
DSB: Yes, and it has the beginnings of taking a system and breaking it. But only in a very,
very little way. He couldnt really grasp that as an interesting idea to become more involved with.
SR: Well, the topic is a challenging one to parse out, as I have already said. It is difficult to
put a pedigree on an idea.
RV: Yes. Right.
SR: In these years, there is so much interaction between so many very historically significant
and important people, Ive begun to frame this and I have been encouraged to think about it, by
both Bill Whitaker and David Brownlee as a larger thing. That yours was an influence on a larger
community; Kahn would have been a part of that community.
DSB: What we are finding now is that there is a huge interest in our work in Europe among
young architects. We had a journalist here from London a while back who was saying that at the AA
the school I was at that the students there are interested in the Smithsons and in us, and thats it.
Who knows how long that will be the case, but it is basically a reawakening of social interest, interest
in the mapping techniques we have used, and also an interest in the early Las Vegas.
So we are
experiencing approaches from all directions to come talk about these things, write about them we
are getting it from all over the place, and really it is all quite nice the whole discussion of
postmodernism has fallen away, and I think we are getting a better understanding of what we really
stand for than we have ever had but it is from another generation.
SR: That is very interesting.
DSB: We have had scholars from Holland, Switzerland, England, France, and then all the
scholars from Princeton and the rest, and Rem Koolhaass students, and so on.
69
SR: I have a broad question here about Kahn do you think you, personally directly
reignited Kahns interest in history?
RV: Yes. Yes I do definitely think so. I have written about that.
SR: Earlier, I was saying well, the two of you come back from Rome, and major things
start to happen. Big things happen. I have to wonder if you helped Kahn see another Rome.
Rome anew Rome through a different set of lenses.
RV: Yes, Yes. I do think so.
DSB: When Lou did those colored sketches of Greece and of Rome
SR: The travel sketches are interesting because they convey an interest in massing and in
as I say he appears to be looking at a Rome, but not the same Rome that you were looking at.
DSB: That is what I was going to say. I think the travel sketches show Kahns way of
seeing before Bob talked to him. Before he began to open his eyes to another way of looking at the
same subject matter. He was doing all these sketches in colors he was quick to say did not exist as
if what he is interested in is light, that is what he is thinking about he is trying to look at the
different ways light is falling on these forms. He is now sort of eyes wide open when Bob comes
onto the scene.
RV: Yes, he went to the academy. But that was sort of my he went there for a few
months, visiting. You know, I feel guilty not having said much here I feel jet lagged, but
essentially what I want to say I feel I have already said best in what I have written on the subject.
Its all here in this book.
SR: Well, I thank you both very much
DSB: Should he talk to Sue or Judy about the contacts?
RV: I think Judy might be the one.
70
DSB: Well, some of them might be in my contacts file. Also, Jeremy has compiled the big,
comprehensive contacts file. So Judy can refer to that to see what she can find.
RV: If you could e-mail her a list, she could then work from that. You are in Philadelphia
for how long?
SR: I leave in the morning.
RV: Oh, well. You might come back.
SR: I also think much of this might best be done with telephone interviews. Of course, I
could and would come back, but many of these people are scattered across the country the world,
actually. I have so many people to talk to, and many will undoubtedly suggest others
RV: Well, write down the names you have. Well do what we can on our side. Lets have
Judy come in and talk to us about this right now.
DSB: We have not managed to ask of you what else you do; this work you are doing now is
undoubtedly taking up a great deal of time. It seems you are in practice? So this would be at best, a
part time occupation.
SR: Yes. I have to carve out time to do this work.
DSB: Well, we do the same thing. Scholarly endeavors alongside practice. We wouldnt do
it any other way, but its not so easy.
SR: Well, I have been inspired by that. By you, actually.
DSB: People here in the office are not so inspired. They say it is a very expensive way to
run a practice.
SR: Yes. Yes it is.
RV: I want to introduce you to Judy.
JG: Hello.
71
RV: He will give you a list of names we gave him, and we would like you to give him the
contact information for those names. Anything you have.
DSB: Use Jeremys new list. And I have also got a lot of stuff, some of it over twenty years
old. Thank you, I have enjoyed both sets of our interactions
RV: You want me to sign that book for you?
SR: Sure, I would love that thank you.
RV: Since youre Sam, Ill be Bob Do you have a car?
SR: I rented a car. I toured your work this morning, what I could I went by the Guild
House, Mothers House, the North Penn Visiting Nursing Center.
RV: Oh, that (North Penn Visiting Nursing Center office building) is a disaster. It has been
ruined. It is not the same. But it is very nice that the people who have had Mothers house for over
decades, have taken such good care of it. They are good friends. I call architecture the most fragile
medium it has to be maintained, functions change over time, it gets added to, altered
SR: Well, there is no substitute for visiting these places one has studied for years.
RV: Oh, yes.
SR: You can learn a given amount through books, photos, drawings, descriptions, but to
understand architecture you have to spend time with it, actually with it, right? When you arrive at a
place you have studied for years, it is always so different than you have it in your mind.
RV: Yes. Right.
SR: Particularly in the case of Mothers House. It is just so dramatic volumetrically, and I, at
least, was not prepared for that I had not sensed that from the many, many photos and drawings I
have viewed of it
RV: Thats interesting.
72
SR: That front elevation is so iconic; it presents as such a two dimensional faade, it almost
deceives well, one is wholly unprepared for the volumetric drama, the sculptural power, the place,
that is first revealed within that entry slot and all that is tightly woven into it.
RV: Yes. That photo, that famous photo with my mother and her flowers sitting in that
entry you know, another building - a shame, really well, Steve Izenour, one of my very best
friends, but a complete and total bastard in some ways, went to London and was in charge of the
photographer who we spent thousands of dollars to send from America to photograph the
Sainsbury Wing project. And he photographed it only when these double-decker busses came by
he thought that was so funny, and witty, and so these busses are in the foreground of every single
photograph we got of that project. This is the one photograph we have where you can see more of
the building behind a bus. And this elevation is so wonderful because you have the juxtaposition of
the classical historical faade, the continuation of the older one, and then you also have the Mies
Van de Rohe modernist frame integrated I still love that building too, which we saw just last
week. And the project in Toulouse, where we just were, that was great fun. You know, that
building has never been published. Its out of fashion, I guess, but it beautifully appreciated in the
city.
SR: It is a beautiful project.
RV: That, again, is also a context thing it very much relates to the context it is red brick
within that city.
SR: And that is the other thing about visiting these projects; you cant fully understand
much about the context without being there.
RV: Yes, absolutely. The context is significant.
SR: Seeing the Guild House in its setting was very useful for me.
73
RV: Yes, a very ordinary, conventional setting. It is so nice that that building has also been
very well maintained by our clients. It is too bad that the ornamental TV antenna in the front had
to be taken down, because people thought of it as vulgar. Sad.
I think it is still visible in this
photograph yes, there it is. Beautifully maintained.

RV: If you would like to get into Mothers house, we can give them a call they may be out
of town, they live partly in Virginia and partly in Pennsylvania.
SR: Thank you for that, but Bill Whitaker already gave them a call and I think they are out
of town.
I will take my leave now thank you for lunch, and for the opportunity to speak with
both of you.
RV: Thank you for coming, and good luck, and I look forward to not that I read much
any more
SR: Well, I still have a lot more interviewing to do, and lots of sorting out perhaps I will
have a few more questions of you downstream.
RV: Sure, absolutely. By all means, and I will be unjetlagged. Well, it has been a pleasure good luck with everything.
74
APPENDIX D
Interviews with Nicholas Gianopulos,
October 2, 2007
SR: I have a lot of evidence, pretty consistent, but it is mostly anecdotal and circumstantial.
Although in some cases, the lack of evidence seems to become a kind of evidence, as in the absence
of documents related to Tyng in Kahns records. Citing your statements will help there, because you
are a direct source you were there - but if your statements include specifics that shore up their
document-ability, so much the better.
NG: I have strong feelings about this topic. Historians are skewing the relationship
between Kahn and Venturi. They are casting Bob as a protg of Lou, and I never saw it that way,
not ever. Bob did have a strong influence on Kahn, and on his work. I can give you case histories
of that.
SR: Earlier, we discussed that there is something more to this than the mere exchange of
specific architectural ideas. By that, I mean both Kahns move away from Tyng toward Venturi and
Kahns reawakening of interest in architectural history.
Any support you can offer there - you
already have, but the deeper I can go here the better - would be invaluable to my work.
NG: Yes. There is something larger than that. It seems to me, has always seemed to me,
that up until that time, Lou was so strongly under the influence of Tyng. Once Bob came into the
picture, Lou started to drift away from Tyng. One Sunday afternoon, we were all talking about a
synagogue in West Oak Lane one of the projects that died, never got built. It was some rotatedtetrahedron type of thing. Bob and Bob never, never was off-putting or rude in any way said to
Lou, quite earnestly, Lou, I think there are other ways of expressing what you want to express
here.
It stopped Lou, gave him pause. We were associated with Komendant on the Olivetti
project, and one afternoon, I drove Lou up to Komendants house, about ninety miles north of
75
town. We sat on the deck, got fairly sauced. Komendant posed to Lou the question What do you
think of Romaldo Giurgola? Lou said many nice things; very competent designer, etc. Komendant
then asked, What do you think of Venturi? Kahn paused, and said Venturi is an architect. He is
an architect, through and through. He knows architecture; knows what it was, knows what it is,
knows what it will be. I am the lone living witness to that event. Bob should be acknowledged
for his contributions at that time.
He has not been. Carter (Wiseman) and Bob never hit it off.
And Bob had problems with some of Carters previous book, so I dont think he got much help
with this one. 42
January 3, 2008
NG: Your e-mail mentions having anecdotal and circumstantial evidence, no hard evidence.
Well, I dont think you will ever have anything much more than that here.
SR: There is no proof that I am finding, but there is a great deal of evidence.
NG:
Well, yes. There is one thing that I will go and get some photos of, that show how
Lou very quickly changed from the International School. The dormitory at Bryn Mawr, Lou is
moving into a historicist everyone says it looks like the citadel in France or a Scottish castle and so
on, but there is something there I find quite interesting. You walk into the central space and there is
a freestanding fireplace with its back to you, beautifully crafted, beautiful clean masonry work.
Above the fireplace is a Jack arch. You know, a flat beveled arch. Then, above that, there is a
segmental circular arch. It is a redundancy, a play on structural elements. And it is similar to
something Furness did at a much larger scale at his art museum, above some knock-out masonry
panels designed to accommodate future expansion of the museum. It was as though Kahn turned a
magnifying glass around and borrowed the whole thing at a reduced scale. This was nothing like the
way Lou had been working. This was just after Dacca. Dacca was 64, 65, and Bryn Mawr came
just after that, In Dacca he did something that I don t think he would have ever done before. He
42
Referring to Carter Wisemans recent book Louis I. Kahn: Beyond Time and Style.
76
has these offices off of the quadrant in the corner of the assembly chamber, where he intermixes the
use of exterior, linear bearing walls, but on the inboard he introduces freestanding columns. That
was the first time we saw him use columns in conjunction with bearing walls he had always
steered away from well, he had either used either all walls or all columns. I think this relative
freedom of thought was a result of his working with Bob, because Bob was always emphasizing how
in the work we admire of the past, there was nothing pure. His whole complexity and contradiction
argument... you go back to all the buildings we admire, and architects had no problems with hoking
them up. These are subtle things, but I think they came from his relationship with Bob.
I was not a party to Venturis relationship ending with Lou would rather not discuss what I
dont know. I try to steer away from all that you know, we work with all these people, and we have
a level of trust there. Im not a party to the correspondence.
Youve read the latest book on Kahn, by Carter Wiseman? Ive been trying to get Wiseman
and Bob together, but Bob wont have a part of it.
SR: There is Wisemans book just out, and also McCarters. Neither of them acknowledges
what we are talking about here at all.
NG: No. No. No. Not at all. I talked to Carter about all this. I did emphasize all this to
Wiseman. I told him about the West Oak Lane synagogue project that we talked about earlier. Lou
was at a party on a Sunday in West Oak Lane that I was at with my wife, and Lou asked us to give
him a ride to his office for a meeting then he asked my wife to go on without me because he
wanted me to come up and meet a fellow in his office and that was when I met Bob. Lou had a
study model of the synagogue project, and that is when that exchange I talked to you about
occurred. Lou just held it up in front of Bob, not asking for a crit, but implying that was what he
wanted. Several moments of silence passed, and Bob finally said, I think I know where you are
77
trying to go here I never saw that model again. You know that big Swiss compilation book of
Kahns work I dont think that project is even listed in there. It may be. I dont think so.
SR: Returning for a moment to that fireplace at Bryn Mawr you say this ties back to
NG: I think Bobs philosophy that you can use elements that that seem logical and pleasing
to you without being accused of plagiarizing.
SR: And now Lou is borrowing a historical element from Furness and using it at the Bryn
Mawr dorm.
NG: Lou lived amongst the Furness work, and he was a great admirer of Furness. Furness
was one of his idols when they were going to tear down his bank building, Lou said I would
rather see them tear down Independence Hall than that building. Bob felt the same way about
Furness. Here in Philadelphia, Furness is a deity, as you know.
SR: And you would be willing to take some photographs
NG: Yes, I will get those for you. I live close to the dormitory. And I ll go out to Penn and
get that detail wall that Furness did. There is also a Unitarian church here that Furness did, that has
some windows over the fireplace. Not with the clarity that Lou has in the Esherick house or at a big
scale the Unitarian Church at Rochester, but we believe that is a Furness derived detail. My partner,
Tom Leidigh, did the Esherick house. He did a lot of Kahns projects, but none for Bob. He and I
split up a lot of the larger projects working with Kahn we both worked on Dacca, that sort of
thing.
SR: Is he available to talk to?
NG: (Gets contact information)
SR: Im interested in this historicist line in Kahns work tracing back to Furness, because I
think that in itself shows Kahn looking at historical precedents more
78
NG: You know, we worked for Lou for 22 years. We used to have a lot of interesting
lunches, bull sessions, and so on. And I remember one time he brings back this section of extruded
steel handrail from La Jolla, the Salk project. Big, heavy piece of steel he brought back in his luggage.
He says, Just look at that it looks five hundred years old. These were not the kind of things you
were accustomed to hearing from Lou, because over the years he had never made these verbal
allusions to historicity.
SR: Well, yes, that shift in his outlook is something everyone acknowledges, but most
historians want to attribute it to his trip to Europe right about then. But he had been to Europe,
was well educated in history, was classically trained, had a beaux-arts education. None of that was
new to him but what was new was the presence of Venturi, and Venturis ideas. It may have been
something else in the wind around Kahn at the time, but it seems that Venturi was at the forefront,
if not the only voice advancing those ideas in his circle
NG: Bob was the only one. He was the only architect in Philadelphia talking about history
in any kind of analytical way. We had some art history professors out at Penn, and some good art
historians, like Dave Robb and Garrison and those fellows. But they were just analyzing historical
buildings in the context of their own time and period.
SR: Then Bob took the whole deck of cards and shuffled it, dealing out historical examples
from unrelated periods and looking at their implications for contemporary work.
NG: When he was working on Complexity and Contradiction, he would stop by the house
on weekends, and ask what do you think of this and I barely knew what he was talking about
fifteen years later, I began to understand.
79
APPENDIX E
A WORMS EYE VIEW OF RECENT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY
(Selected Excerpt)
Denise Scott Brown
There was at this time another influence on Kahn that, in his late years, would prove to be
stronger than the Brutalists, Kahns Beaux-Arts training, or his experience in Rome, although it was
linked to the latter. This was the ideas of Robert Venturi. Bob was 22 and working for the summer
for the architect Robert Montgomery Brown when he first met Lou Kahn. Brown and Kahn had
offices in the same building; Bob saw Lou in the elevator, he says Lou was the only architect in his
firm to notice a quiet college grad. That was in 1947. In 1950 Bob invited Kahn to be on his thesis
jury at Princeton. Each was impressed with the performance of the other and Kahn bore the
younger architect in mind.
After Bob had worked for Oscar Stonorov for a year, Kahn
recommended him to Eero Saarinen and Bob spent the next two and a half years in Saarinenss
office. Kahn was on the jury when Bob won the Rome Prize. On his return in 1956, Bob worked
for Kahn for nine months. At the same time he was Lous teaching assistant at Penn. In 1957 Bob
left Kahns office to start his own practice. He and Kahn were on the faculty at Penn and
maintained the friendship that was cemented when Bob returned from Rome. They talked a great
deal. Bob was often in Lous office to give crits. He shared his recent experience in Rome with the
older architect and it is probably from these talks that Lous real interest in history as source material
dates, despite the earlier and beautiful historical sketches that he made while in Europe. Bobs ideas
and the source buildings he discussed with Lou were later to have circulation in Complexity and
Contradiction in Architecture. Bobs admiration for Lou was ungrudging.
80
Kahn had a need to use colleagues, often younger architects, as a sounding board for his
ideas. Visiting students would be accorded precious time in his office while frustrated draftspeople
waited. As a young faculty member, I was, on occasion, the recipient of long, one-sided telephone
calls from Lou. A Philadelphia architect, Santo Lipari, seems to have been another friend for late
evening conversations. Philadelphia taxi drivers, who were his local conveyance, tell of Lous
extended monologues while riding home at night. His two afternoons a week at Penn probably
provided the most creative outlet for this need.
Studio was an important buttress of Lous
emotional life. I met him at Penn on the day President Kennedy was killed. This was a Friday and
not Kahns regular studio day, but he came to Penn when he heard the news because that was where
he wanted to be.
The communication did not go only one way. Although Lou appeared to do most of the
talking, he got ideas from his students and young colleagues, just as he had earlier from Fuller, Le
Ricolais, and Tyng. I know this personally to be true as I was surprised (and flattered) to hear Lou
deliver as his own, thoughts that I had shared with him. Two that come to mind are, campus
architecture should be kickable, and every architect puts a chapel somewhere in each building. I
noticed too that my suggestions were included in a revised version of the site plan for the Salk
center.
Therefore I believe Bobs claim that, despite his initial position as a disciple and protg of
Lou, the architectural influences went in both directions; that is, that Bob taught Lou as much as he
learned from him and that the last phase of Kahns architectural career should be seen as under the
influence of Venturi. This influence was not so much upon the vocabulary as upon the relationship
of forms. In particular, Lou learned from Bob about Mannerist exception, distortion, and inflection
in form. He learned his philosophy of light in buildings, as well as the notion of a thing in a
thing. Through Bob, he investigated the layering of enclosed spaces and the layered juxtapositions
81
of walls and openings, and he discovered that windows could be holes in the wall again. He played
on these themes in his important late buildings, particularly those in Dacca.
The borrowings were never acknowledged. Kahn acknowledged the collaboration of Tyng
in print. The only influence I ever heard him acknowledge verbally was Le Corbusiers. During the
Depression Kahn was among the many unemployed architects who were sustained by Federal
projects. His assignment involved library research which led him to read and examine all the works
of Le Corbusier. He said this was his starting point as a Modern architect.
Lou was a great artist. The influences I have described probably account for the changes
that were visible in his architecture over the years, but they were well incorporated. The work is one
and it is his.
Nevertheless, the sources and influences should be known and understood by
architectural historians and architects.
The Solitary Genius theory of architecture is usually a
distortion that does violence to the facts and harms the profession, particularly the students and
young architects.
The fact that Lou acknowledged few of his borrowings and probably not the most important
ones, finally clouded the friendship between Bob and Lou. Their work had already diverged.
Although Bobs modest practice limited his opportunities to use the ideas he had shared with Lou,
when such opportunities came, Bob proved that he was not merely Squashed Kahn. When Bob
and I took the road to symbolism by turning to Las Vegas, there was no way for Kahn to follow.
The older architect was perplexed at the youngers disaffection. He tried to discover its cause. He
sent a message to Bob that there was truth in Las Vegas. When Lou died, Bob cried. I think he
felt he had lost an architectural mother. 43
43
Scott Brown, Denise, A worms eye view of recent architectural history, Architectural Record 171, February 1984
82
APPENDIX F
THOUGHTS ABOUT EVOLVING TEACHERS AND STUDENTS
Robert Venturi
The final test of an artist, to put it simply, is: Is he right and is he good? And certainly there
is a right quality in the heroism of Louis Kahn, as so evident when we review his work from the
vantage point of now and consider it in the context of then as we consider his architecture as
reflecting the can-do America of then, in the fifties and sixties, and as characterized by confidence,
optimism, know-how by idealism when we were on top of the world and before the American
economy, social sensibility, and just plain will had succumbed to excesses of military-industrial
complexity, decadent capitalism, and John Kenneth Galbraiths Culture of Contentment: Kahns heroic
architecture was valid for his time right as well as good.
And from this viewpoint Louis Kahn might be the last relevant Modernist among the great
architects of our century as well as in some ways the first after-modernist. But it is also right, as I
look back explicitly through my own subjective eyes, that our emerging approach, that of Denise
Scott Brown and myself, was right that approach of us young architects of that time about to be
mature architects of the next time. I was called an anti-hero then, sympathetically, by Vincent Scully
while at the same time our work was labeled ugly and ordinary by Gordon Bunshaft; we took this
phrase as a compliment, considering the source, and adopted it. And the bases of our architecture
do now appear far more evolutionary than revolutionary, pragmatic than progressive, familiar than
original, ornamental than articulated, realist than idealist, vernacular than formal, symbolic as well as
formal. And our buildings were elemental in their symbolism and their art; they looked familiar and
different, ordinary and good, the little houses looked like houses and they even had windows; the fire
stations reminded you of something of fire stations actually, rather than exhibitionist fragments of
83
late Corbu or correct manifestations of Mies exposing their structure out of context as fire stations
of young architects tended to look at that time. (In a later time they might look like an explosion in
a Cubist sculpture exhibition: have you looked at Zaha Hadids Fire Station while envisioning the
regular guys who are going to inhabit it and work in it erectly? The heroic and original tradition lives
on!) Our starting points included urban sprawl, commercial strips, and even Main Street, and if
Kahns urban planning acknowledged existing fabric as opposed to that of Frank Lloyd Wright,
the Emersonian individualist, who remade the American city in his own motival image, or that of Le
Corbusier, the heroic revolutionary, who demolished the historic city to begin all over again
Kahns intrusions within the existing fabric could be nevertheless heroic and utopian, as in
monumental public parking garages resembling the turrets of medieval fortresses. Perhaps Denise
Scott Browns and my evolving approach to architecture and urbanism reflected Nathaniel
Hawthornes somber view that a hero cannot be a hero unless in an heroic world.
As Kahns young students we were able to evolve out of him to learn from his sensibility
concerning the condition of this time of then and to attune ours anticipating the quality of our time
to come acknowledging ambiguity and mannerism and pragmatism to do as Kahn did as he
evolved out of Paul Cret, Le Corbusier, Buckminister Fuller, and also out of his own students
toward his way.
It is moving to remember his thrilling revelations of the building not as a floating frame but
as walls walls sitting on the ground and with holes in them and of servant spaces acknowledging
hierarchies of space, and of poch in plan; these revelations of then seem ordinary now, but this
proves their ultimate force and significance. It is also touching to recall Kahns saying to Denise
Scott Brown There is truth in Las Vegas and to recall his conversion to historical analogy as an
element of architecture in terms of its process and substance. 44
44
Venturi, Robert. Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic Architecture. MIT Press, 1996 p. 85
84
APPENDIX G
LOUIS KAHN REMEMBERED
Notes from a lecture at the opening of the Kahn Exhibition in Japan, January 1993
Robert Venturi
Here is a short and subjective view of Louis Kahns work or rather, three perspectives of
his work as I am reminded of it in the current exhibition designed by Arata Isozaki. I refer to
Kahn in the context of his own time, Kahn from the perspective of now, and inevitably Kahn in
relation to me as an architect then and now in short, as I saw Kahn then and see him now.
But I have to add that reconstructing how we saw Kahn and his work then is difficult: the
recent past is the hardest time to recapture and perceive when you are focusing on issues of taste
and sensibility. For this reason I shall employ the comparative method contrasting what Kahn was
and is, as I see it, with what he was not.
Also, it is important that an underlying assumption, basic to this analysis, is: Kahn was and is
a great architect; that is, he was good and right. He was also a great teacher; I speak, I think as a true
student of Kahn that is, not as a follower but as one who evolved out of him and his work was
liberated by him rather than converted by him.
Some characteristics of Kahns work, as I see them in the context of then from the
perspective of now, and employing comparisons:
Kahns architectural vocabulary was UNIVERSAL; it evolved and developed over time but
at any one time it was essentially consistent the same, simultaneously, for example, for a
library for a northeastern boarding school in the United States like Phillips Exeter Academy
and for a national parliament building in Bangladesh. His vocabulary was rich, but not
85
eclectic essentially not accommodating to a particular function or to context as ethos of a

place.
In this way Kahns architecture was very much of its time and within the Modern
architectural tradition, one of the ideals of which was a universal system applicable in a single
unified world whose basis was an order derived from industrial technical forms very
different from our multicultural view today, where ironically elements of universalism are
most vividly evident in Pop culture and in fast food imagery promoted via electronic
communication and multinational corporations.
Kahns architectural vocabulary was essentially one promoting FORM essentially

geometrical, sculptural, abstract a vocabulary therefore not involving symbol and thereby
accommodating again to Modernist tradition. Do you remember Le Corbusiers definition
of architecture as the play, magnificent and just, of pure forms in light? But Kahns
approach at the same time was not classic Modern because of the quality of MASS
characteristic of his form and its deviation from a Modernist emphasis on frame. This
approach was most striking in the context of his time, although it paralleled that of the bton
brut forms of late Le Corbusier.
And Kahns vocabulary of mass eschewed ORNAMENT or at least explicit or applied

ornament.
What could be called ornament for him derived almost incidentally from
function-structural detail involving texture deriving in turn from materials, joints, etc.
It
could never be explicitly symbolic, graphic, or lyrical. In the context of the fifties and sixties
this was not unconventional, where articulation was substituted for ornament.
And the expression of Kahns forms as mass was HEROIC and ORIGINAL as opposed
to ordinary and conventional. Allusions that were populist or vernacular were unthinkable,
although Kahns gentle early houses of the forties and early fifties might exemplify kinds of
86
ordinary-Modernist conventions. Architecture was to be essentially a vehicle for promoting

the progressive and attaining the ideal. And again this approach was of its time, when being
original was equated with being creative. For example, the Market Street North project in
Philadelphia does not exemplify the Corbusian revolutionary idea of the Ville Radieuse with
its superblocks without reference to historical or local context, but Kahns spatial intrusions
within the existing fabric of the American gridiron plan were in themselves heroic, as were
those castle-like forms of the parking garages.
The element of BIG SCALE: scale that is heroic predominates within these forms, although
it is sensitively balanced by small-scale elements within the composition.
The EXCLUSION OF SHELTER: the heroic sculptural quality of late-Kahn architecture

precluded any expression of architecture as shelter. This is ironical because Kahns return to
archaic basics would seem to encourage an acknowledgement of such an elemental quality of
architecture as is evident in the generic archaic temple.
STRUCTURAL and GEOMETRIC RHETORIC was prominent in Kahns work of the

fifties as he was fascinated and influenced by Buckminster Fullers and Anne Tyngs ideas,
but this element diminished in the sixties with his later orientation toward sculpture and
mass.
THEORY: the prominent theoretical basis of Kahns work as he enunciated it in the last
part of his career involved equivalents of the HISTORIC, ORIGINAL, and UNIVERSAL
vocabulary of his form. His emphasis on esoteric metaphysical pronouncements concerning
mind, spirit, body, and timeless universal absolutes involved things as they should be rather
than as they are, and his contemporary and parallel historical reference focused on the
archaic heroics of form. Historical reference I was into too, but I embraced a wider range of
historical examples and prototypes that I employed as analogy for analysis. My personal
87
feeling as an artist is one of uneasiness concerning this later aspect of Kahns stance. I think
such fundamental dimensions you embrace not by striving for them explicitly as an artist but
by thinking pragmatically about immediate things and achieving them incidentally. Its for
others, perhaps, to perceive the sublime and lyricize over it after the job is done. That stuff
will take care of itself if youve done a good job of art.
These characteristics of Kahns forms I have briefly enumerated as I see them in the context
of his time and from my perspective now.
Here are some other characteristics of Kahns
architecture described as elements that I love and have learned from:
HIERARCHICAL SPACE: What a glorious revelation the SERVANT SPACE was, with its
hierarchical implications and functional acknowledgement of mechanical equipment as
implied poch for now. And its implications were stupendous for enriching programmaticgeneric space especially after the nave promotion of mechanical equipment as sculpture
deriving from the machine aesthetic which is currently in as a substitute for ornament.
The IDEA OF THE ROOM: enclosure is OK, indeed valid and enriching. It is hard to
comprehend how original this idea was: after the domination of Modern flowing space,
enclosure was shocking.
The WALL: sitting on the ground rather than as a floating plane on a frame. Believe me,
that deserves a Wow! hard as it is to believe now: it allow us, Denise Scott Brown and me,
to acknowledge Pop-vernacular for instance!
HOLES IN WALLS: rather than total interruption of walls although Kahn was too
Modern to stomach the conventional image of the window in his heroic work, he did so in
some of his local residential work in Philadelphia. This characteristic in his work evolved
out of abolishing the frame wall and was most influential on my work.
LAYERS: spatial layering had been taboo because it promoted redundancy.

88
BREAKING THE ORDER:
this happened near the end of Kahns career, but his
exceptions were not anguished or mannerist.

It is hard to see from the perspective of today how these elements were shocking in the
context of then. And here Lou was sublime in his influence as he liberated young architects and
expanded our sensibilities.
It is hard also to reveal that some of the characteristics of Kahns, described above represent
influences of Denise Scott Brown and myself rather than on Denise Scott Brown and myself
exemplifying a not uncommon case of the son informing the father. Denise has written of this issue
elsewhere (A Worms Eye View of Recent Architectural History, Architectural Record, February
1984), and I shall note here that Kahn learned from me concerning the elements of layering, holes in
walls, and breaking the order described above; his use of inflection in the case of the pavilions in the
Salk Center complex derives also from my critique.
And Kahns use of HISTORICAL REFERENCE in the fifties and sixties is usually
attributed to the influence of his early Beaux-Arts training at the University of Pennsylvania and his
impressions from his stay at the American Academy in Rome in the early fifties. But I think it
derived more from me when I was close to Kahn in the late fifties and early sixties during the end,
lets not forget, of his fifties geometric-structural period dominated by the ideas of Buckminster
Fuller and Anne Tyng. And my use of historical analogy as a part of the analytical process of design
derived in turn from my Princeton education in the forties as a student of Jan Labatut and Donald
Drew Egbert, where Modernism was recognized as a valid movement within the history of Western
architecture and not as an end of history. And it is sad to note that historical analogy as analytical
method, employed in Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture which I was writing in the early sixties,
was later misinterpreted (but never by Kahn) as a form of stylistic promotion by later so-called
Postmodernists: perhaps if youre good, youre misunderstood!
89
I have described Kahns more original than referential, more heroic than ordinary, more
formal than symbolic kind of architecture, while Denise Scott Brown and I began in the sixties to
look at everyday roadside sprawl more than correctly abstracted ruins and to practice a pragmatism,
an anguished realism that included an acknowledged symbolism itself an approach with a valid
tradition where the subject in art can be not gods in Arcadia but bohemians in cafes or Dutch
burghers as genre. 45
45
Venturi, Robert, Venturi, Robert. Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic Architecture. MIT Press, 1996 p. 87
90
APPENDIX H
SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
Brownlee, David B. & De Long, David G. Louis I. Kahn: In the Realm of Architecture
In my opinion, any inquiry into the literature concerning Kahn would be well served by
beginning here.
The authors have been quoted in this paper extensively. They discuss the
influence of Venturi on Kahn, as noted above, although they stop short of the argument
advanced in this paper (the interview with Dr. Brownlee sheds some light on why).
Brownlee, David B., De Long, David G., & Hiesinger, Kathryn B. Out of the Ordinary: The Architecture
and Design of Robert Venturi, Denise Scott Brown and Associates.
Philadelphia Museum of Art, 2001
Perhaps the best general reference available for Scott Brown and Venturi, and also a rich
source of information about the interactions between Kahn and Venturi early in Venturis
career.
Cook, John W. & Klotz, Heinrich. Conversations with Architects.

Praeger Publishers, 1973
This book consists primarily of transcripts of interviews with eight leading architects of the
time, including Louis Kahn and Denise Scott Brown with Robert Venturi. The interviews
occur nearly a decade after Kahn and Venturi had parted company and their careers had
taken them on dramatically different paths.
91
Forty, Adrian. Words and Buildings: A Vocabulary of Modern Architecture.

Thames & Hudson, 2000
Forty includes a chapter on Context in this book, in which he notes that the terms
context, contextual, and contextualism were part of the first substantial critique of
modernist practice, and might on that account be classed as postmodernist terms. Forty
dates the first architectural use of the term back to Italy in the mid-50s, but the first
appearance of the notion of context in architectural design appears to be with Robert
Venturis MFA thesis at Princeton, Context in Architectural Composition, presented in 1950. I
corresponded with Forty concerning Venturis earlier use of the term, and he replied
Thanks for this. I didnt know about Venturis dissertation, so have obviously missed an
important source Fortys book directly, if unintentionally, lends support to Venturis
claim that his was the first articulation of the idea of context as a viable theoretical concept
in architectural, and it also correctly notes how contrary to the prevailing norm of
modernism the concept was at that time. Louis Kahn was on Venturis masters thesis jury,
placing him front row center to internalize what Venturi presented.
Frampton, Kenneth. Studies in Tectonic Culture: The Poetics of Construction in Nineteenth and Twentieth
Century ArchitectureMassachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995
Frampton devotes a chapter to Kahn here, where he writes extensively about the influence
of Buckminster Fuller and Anne Tyng on Kahn, but avoids any substantial discussion of
Kahns subsequent renewal of interest in history (and never mentions Venturi).
Perhaps
coincidentally, his relationship with Scott Brown and Venturi has been less than cordial;
Denise Scott Browns treatment of Frampton (Pop Off: Reply to Kenneth Frampton) in A
View from the Campidoglio makes this clear.
92
Gast, Klaus-Peter. Louis I. Kahn: The Idea of Order.

Birkhuser, 2001
This book is a study of the geometric and proportional systems found in Kahns
architecture. Appropriately enough, there is a foreword by Anne Tyng.
Goldhagen, Sarah Williams. Louis Kahns Situated Modernism.

Yale University Press, 2001
Goldhagen contributes a thoughtful and well researched work embodying a wealth of
information and insights. The title might suggest a sympathetic view toward Venturis
influence on Kahn with respect to context, but she does not delve into the role of Venturi
on Kahns situational interpretation of Modernism. She acknowledges Venturis presence
and infers the potential influence of both Venturi and Charles Moore on Kahn, somewhat
emphasizing the latter.
Johnson, Eugene J. and Lewis, Michael J. Drawn From the Source: The Travel Sketches of Louis I. Kahn.
MIT Press, 1996
This book is a careful and thoughtful analysis of the Kahns travel drawings that includes
rich biographical background research on Kahns life. Venturis potential role is mentioned.
Larson, Kent. Unbuilt Masterworks: Louis I. Kahn.

Monacelli, 2000
This book is a compilation of digitally modeled and rendered Kahn projects that were never
built. It includes numerous examples of architectural elements that suggest the influence of
Venturi, two of which I include in this paper.
93
Latour, Alessandra. Louis I. Kahn: luomo, il maestro

Edizioni Kappa, 1986
Latour compiles a rich collection of perspectives on Kahn in this book. It includes a chapter
by Kenneth Frampton, wherein he explains Kahns interest in history as simply owing to a
distant figure of that history: it seems that Piranesi was the essential catalyst which
enabled Kahn to synthesize two otherwise irreconcilable aspects of his art: on the one hand,
his constant preoccupation with the technical and tectonic authority of the constituent
elements from which building had to be compounded the ducts and piers of service and
support; on the other, the capacity to combine and recombine the ruined fragments of a lost
heroic past Frampton recognizes Kahns interest in architectural history as a constant in
his late career, and also acknowledges that Kahns mature work represents a synthesis of
opposing (abstract and historical) forces (that I see as an obvious reflection of the influences
of Tyng and Venturi, respectively).
Latour, Alessandra. Louis I. Kahn: Writings, Lectures, Interviews

Rizzoli, 1991
As the title suggests, this is a collection of previously published writings, lectures and
interviews of Kahn. It appears to be a comprehensive collection spanning his career.
Leslie, Thomas. Louis I. Kahn: Building Art, Building Science.

Braziller, 2005
This book focuses on the innovative technologies and engineering that were required, and
achieved, in Kahns architecture.
94
Lobell, John. A Lucid Mystic Helped Transform Our Architecture.

Smithsonian, July 1979, Volume 10, Number 4
Lobell teaches a class at Pratt about Kahn and Venturi, and was a student of both at Penn.
This paper is mostly focused on Kahn and his role in architectural history.
Lobell, John. Between Silence and Light: Spirit in the Architecture of Louis I. Kahn.
Shambhala 1979
In the front of this book, Lobell places selections of Kahns poetic oratories adjacent to
minimalist photographs of his architecture.
was his idea is on page 42.)
(The column and wall idea that Venturi claims
The balance of the book consists of general summaries of
selected Kahn projects and a brief biography.
Lobell, John. Kahn and Venturi: An Architecture of Being-in-Context.

Artform, Summer 1977
This paper articulates Lobells observations about Kahn and Venturi being nearly perfect
complimentary opposites of one another.
Loud, Patricia Cummings. The Art Museums of Louis I. Kahn.

Duke University Press, 1989
This book offers detailed treatment of the Yale University Art Gallery, the Kimbell Art
Museum, and the Yale Center for British Art. The chapter on the Yale University Art
Gallery discusses the influence of Tyng.
95
McCarter, Robert. Louis I. Kahn.

Phiadon Press, 2005
McCarter mentions Venturi but twice in his 500 page book, once dismissively as a postmodern historicist and once in passing within a list of faculty at Penn (where he states the
faculty had a profound influence on Kahn but does not elaborate beyond claiming
Norman Rice and Robert Le Ricolais were the only important influences). This book
features an excellent chronology of Kahns projects by William Whitaker, curator of the
Architectural Archives at Penn.
Mead, Christopher. The Architecture of Robert Venturi.

University of New Mexico Press, 1989
Although now somewhat dated, this book was written well after Venturis interactions with
Kahn and although Venturis role re-introducing history and Kahn are both discussed, there
is no connection drawn between the two.
Ngo, Dung. Louis I. Kahn: Conversations with Students, 2nd Edition.

Rice University School of Architecture, 1998
This book portrays Kahn as visionary mentoring students who sit reverently at his feet. It is
written basically in a question and answer format, where a question serves as a chapter
heading.
96
Progressive Architecture, April 1961

The Philadelphia School
Progressive Architecture virtually dedicated the April 1961 issue to events unfolding at Penn:
both Kahn and the term Philadelphia School were elevated to celebrity status in the
mainstream architectural press. The issue discussed the roles of many key figures, including
Perkins, Le Ricolais, Komendant, Venturi, Giurgola, Geddes, and above all, Kahn as their
unofficial leader.
The segment begins by lamenting the prevalent confusion and
aimlessness in todays architectural design philosophy and the spiritual vacuum in the
profession of architecture as a lead-in to an exposition of photographs, drawings, sketches,
and interviews of Kahn.
Far more than affording Kahn enormous exposure and credibility,
this article framed his architectural philosophy as a way for the profession to recover its
relevance and substance. Twenty-some pages later, Giurgola, Venturi, Le Ricolais, and
Geddes begin to share brief appearances in print, but within in the larger context of Kahns
architectural vision. The article concludes:
The similarity of architectural expression that is clearly visible in the work of those
who think like Kahn, indicates that this approach need not be limited and should not
be considered as one mans personal expression, but should be regarded as having a
universal validity. From examinations of the various projects, it is evident that there
are infinite possibilities of individual solutions and expressions inherent in this
approach. This heralds an exciting new period in architecture, a new renaissance,
which could prove to be as important in the history of architectural development as
the emergence of the Chicago School in the late 19th century. Since this new
movement stems from Philadelphia, it can be said that we are witnessing the birth of
a new school in architectural thinking, the Philadelphia School.
97
Progressive Architecture, April 1976

Philadelphias Phantom School
In the April of 1976 Progressive Architecture published a retrospective article that, with the
benefit of fifteen years of historical hindsight, offered a critically tempered step back from
the exuberance of 1961; claims of the impact of The Philadelphia School are more
restrained and the role of Venturi is significantly more prominent. Kahn and Venturis
fundamental differences with respect to questions of meaning in architecture are discussed,
as are their respective influences on the profession at large.
Ronner, Heinz, and Jhaveri, Sharad. Louis I. Kahn Complete Work 1935-1974
Birkhuser, 1977
This large format book was compiled as a complete catalog of Kahn projects.
It is
considered a standard reference for drawings and a must-have resource for a Kahn scholar
on the basis of the exhaustive graphic content alone. The writing component of the book is
poorly written and unreliable, however.
Rykwert, Joseph. Louis Kahn.

Abrahms, 2001
This large format book features recent photography of Kahns projects, and is a visual
delight. The writing explains the various projects, and though it does not go into depth with
Kahn or his work, it provides a general overview of Kahns late career.
98
Saito, Yutaka. Louis I. Kahn: Houses.

Toto, 2003
As the title suggests, this book looks exclusively at Kahns residential projects.
The
suggestion of any creative force other than Kahn as a factor in their histories seems outside
the scope of the book.
Schwartz, Frederic. Mothers House.

Rizzoli, 1992
This book traces the development of the Vanna Venturi house over a period of time crucial
to the argument of this paper, and has a wealth of related information, as evidenced by the
numerous times it is cited.
Scott Brown, Denise. A worms eye view of recent architectural history.

Architectural Record, February 1984
Scott Brown here recalls her version of the interactions she observed between Kahn and
Venturi.
Scully, Vincent. Louis I. Kahn.

Braziller, 1962
By 1962, Kahn had become important enough that Scully wrote a book about him. At this
point, Scully seems unaware of Venturis significance in Kahns development, and there is no
mention of him in this writing.
99
Twombly, Robert. Louis Kahn: Essential Texts.

W. W. Norton & Co., 2003
This book is another compilation of Kahns writings and lectures, but it draws from the
Architectural Archives at the University of Pennsylvania and does not rely exclusively on
previously published material.
Tyng, Alexandra. Beginnings: Louis I. Kahns Philosophy of Architecture

New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1984
Alexandra Tyng is the daughter of Anne Tyng and Louis Kahn. She wrote a more personal
biography of her father and his career.
Tyng, Anne Griswold. Louis Kahn to Anne Tyng: The Rome Letters 1953-1954
Rizzoli, 1997
Tyngs compilation of letters from Kahn offer highly poignant and personal insights into
Kahn and their relationship. She supplements the letters with her recollections of Kahn and
those years of her life.
Kahns reluctance to credit the work of others or to acknowledge
their influence on his work is illuminated here.
(Tyngs letters to Kahn were apparently
destroyed.)
Tzonis, Alexander. The Louis I. Kahn Archive: The Completely Illustrated Catalogue of the Drawings in the
Louis I. Kahn Collection Garland Architectural Archives, 1987
This is the best reference for Kahn drawings outside of the Architectural Archives at the
University of Pennsylvania.
100
Venturi, Robert. Complexity and Contradiction in Architecture.

Venturis first book was developed as a formalization of the theory classes he was teaching at
Penn and Yale. He mentions Kahn at various times in the body of the text, but not at the
end of the book, where he provided brief summaries of projects he had completed at that
time.
Venturi, Robert. Iconography and Electronics Upon a Generic Architecture.

MIT Press, 1996
This more personal collection of papers, articles, and essays by Venturi contain the only two
incidents of Venturi writing about his relationship with Kahn.
Venturi, Robert, & Scott Brown, Denise. Architecture as Signs and Systems.
Belknap Press, 2004
This book is a retrospective collection of essays authored by either Venturi or Scott Brown.
It offers insights into many topics that have been of professional interest to them over the
course of their careers, including those addressed in this paper.
Wiseman, Carter. Louis I. Kahn: Beyond Time and Style

New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 2007
This is another book dedicated to Kahn that largely ignores Venturi. In this case, Wiseman
evidently made this decision intentionally (Refer to Gianopulos, Appendix D).
101

S Rodell 09858138 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

S Rodell 09858138 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE INFLUENCE OF ROBERT VENTURI ON LOUIS KAHN

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of

WASHINGTON STATE UNIVERSITY

To the Faculty of Washington State University:

THE INFLUENCE OF ROBERT VENTURI ON LOUIS KAHN

The personal and professional interaction between

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ iii

INTERVIEW: DENISE SCOTT BROWN ................................................................ 27

INTERVIEW: DR. DAVID BROWNLEE................................................................. 31

INTERVIEW: DENISE SCOTT BROWN AND ROBERT VENTURI ............. 47

INTERVIEW: NICHOLAS GIANOPULOS ............................................................. 75

A WORMS EYE VIEW OF RECENT ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY .............. 80

THOUGHTS ABOUT EVOLVING TEACHERS AND STUDENTS ................ 83

LOUIS KAHN REMEMBERED................................................................................... 85

SELECTED ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY........................................................ 91

KAHN/VENTURI COMPARATIVE TIMELINE........................................................ 4

SHAW TOWNHOUSE WINDOW DETAIL ............................................................... 11

MOTHERS HOUSE WINDOW DETAIL..................................................................... 11

MOTHERS HOUSE STUDY MODEL .......................................................................... 11

KORAM RESIDENCE ....................................................................................................... 11

PHILLIPS EXETER DINING HALL, ELEVATION DRAWING......................... 12

VANNA VENTURI HOUSE, ELEVATION DRAWING ........................................ 12

VANNA VENTURI HOUSE ............................................................................................ 13

ESHERICK HOUSE ........................................................................................................... 13

NORTH PENN VISITING NURSES HEADQUARTERS ....................................... 14

NORTH PENN VISITING NURSES HEADQUARTERS ....................................... 14

SALK INSTITUTE STUDY TOWER ............................................................................. 14

SALK INSTITUTE STUDY TOWER ............................................................................. 14

FLOOR PLAN, PEARSON HOUSE............................................................................... 15

NORTH CANTON REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, YMCA ........................................ 17

NORTH CANTON REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, CITY HALL ............................. 17

SALK INSTITUTE MEETING HOUSE ....................................................................... 17

SALK INSTITUTE MEETING HOUSE ....................................................................... 17

LECTURE OUTLINE, LIGHTING ............................................................................... 19

CROSS SECTION, PEARSON HOUSE ........................................................................ 20

LONGITUDAL SECTION, PEARSON HOUSE ........................................................ 20

In 1964, Venturis realization that his own

From this point forward, as Venturis career

Venturis experience seems consistent with a well documented pattern of unacknowledged

Kahn cultivated an identity as the archetypical

Indeed, the ability to generate a larger vision and orchestrate a team

architect (or client) who aspires to create great architecture.

To look at but one project, the

Fig. 1 Kahn/Venturi Comparative Timeline.

In the mid 1950s, Kahn and Venturi developed a

So Kahn himself was eventually

Asked if the topic of context came to be broadly accepted

LEARNING FROM TEACHING AND PRACTICE

The credibility he wields today makes it hard to appreciate how provocative,

quixotic, or perceptive his assaults on Modernism were.

Figure 2: Shaw Townhouse

Figure 3. Vanna Venturi House

Figure 4: Mothers House Study Model

Figure 5: Korman House

Evidence of Venturis probable influence on Kahn is indeed apparent in numerous

Venturis projects frequently featured dramatically manipulated iconic architectural

elements such as over-scaled chimneys.

They dominated architectural compositions, and were

often seen either free standing or incorporated as a compositional architectural anchor.

Figure 6: Phillips Exeter Dining Hall, Louis Kahn (1965-71)

Figure 7: Vanna Venturi House, Robert Venturi (1959-64)

former employee, he said, Theres no question it is Mothers-House-influenced, and the

Figure 8: Vanna Venturi House